it? i'm not sure. there are counter examples. >> let's say there was $3 billion. the support of these companies is around $3 billion. it was not substantial enough to make a big difference. in >> there is the classic example of the leaking butt. was there a lot of leaking? yes, there was. the key issue we need to think about is not what you have, which is important, but what you do with it. they took the leaky bucket, dump

it on the fire to put it out. that was very important particularly where you have telecommunication companies benefiting from that great short-term economic impact, but in other areas, they have used this to get through a drought and derek -- and irrigate their crops, literally and figuratively. it is not so much of the money spent in the short term but how do you harvest from that, what did you take away from that? some areas, they're going to have very super nice broad band networks and they will not do squad. other areas are going to have modernized networks and they're going to do amazing things with it. the challenge going forward is to how to help them do amazing things with this technology.

>> i want to thank everyone on behalf of the hudson institute. this has been an extraordinary discussion. i want to thank larry thompson, greg laudeman, harold furchtgott-roth and the great people at c-span for carrying today's events. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> more live programming coming up in just under half an hour at 12:30 eastern going live to ohio for u.s. senate debate between incumbent senator sherrod brown facing josh mandel, the current state treasurer, and a former marine. it will be courtesy of wviz in

cleveland. later, to indiana, a senate debate between the state treasurer richard murdock and joe donnelly. this is a race that is rated a toss up. this debate is careers -- courtesy of wfyy from indianapolis. that will be live starting at 7:00 eastern. tomorrow is the second of three presidential debates. here is a live picture from hofstra university on long island where the debate will take place. this is inside the sports complex where president obama and mitt romney will be meeting tomorrow for their next debate. this is what they call spin alley. members of the media speak with a party spokesman after the debate to get their take and their spin on how other candidates did.

and the gillespie and david -- ed gillespie and david axelrod gave teh spin after the last debate and we may see them again.

>> we invite you to watch and engage with c-span as they meet for their second debate, the life preview tomorrow when 7 and at 9:00, the chief political correspondent and cnn will moderate, and 90-minute town hall with questions from undecided voters. after the debate we will take your calls, emails, and the tweets.

while we wait for the start of the ohio senate debate, your phone calls on what you need to see from the presidential candidates to make your decision from this morning's "washington journal." host: this new poll says nearly two-thirds of likely voters say they do not need any more information between election day and one in eight is undecided or they say there is a chance they could change their vote. clucking at the opposite of that statistic, here is the question for men. how much more informational would you like to have about the candidates, you said a lot or some. right now, 27%. we would like to hear from you this morning. the number was even greater back before the convention, 41%.

who are the undecided voters and what are they waiting for? there's a simple question -- who are they and what exactly do they want to hear that they have not yet heard from the candidates? host: so, what do you think? nick, st. clair shores. what information are you waiting for?

caller: i am waiting to hear exactly the truth about medicare, i am waiting to hear which side has it. i think i know which side has exactly the truth. host: what do you think? caller code democrats have fallen for medicare. i tend to go with the democrats, even though i voted for john mccain four years ago. host: so, are you doing research on line? will you be watching the debate? caller: i will be watching the debate. i was kind of upset about the last debate. the more that i think about the vice-presidential debate, the more upset by get about joe biden and his over the top approach.

i am looking for the word. i have read the congressional quarterly and "the new york times" every day. i know my history. if ms. bromley told the truth, that would help. -- if romney came out with the truth, that would help. host: alice, good morning. caller: i am very much concerned about my great- grandchildren. i have three of them now. i would say that they will not survive, because i think it will not hold. i am worried about the country, then not doing anything. i have been trying to learn about what is going on with our environment. did you know that it is said that possibly formaldehyde and

hydrochloric acid are two of the chemicals added to the water that is pushed into the ground when they have diffracting -- the fracking going on? i found out that in 2005 the natural gas industry was exempt from the clean air and water act because that is when the epa lost the power to regulate? we do not even know about it. no one talks about it. i do not even understand. you have high-level nuclear waste and these candidates are talking about more nuclear plants being built. we know what happened in japan. it had to stay isolated for

100,000 years to 1 million years. i had been looking into this and i am really frightened. host: are you hearing the candidates talk about environmental issues? caller: they are talking about jobs. so many of these jobs they are talking about providing are in industries that dumped into the oceans. we share the oceans. the oceans flow. it is not just our country, it is going to be all the countries. and i do not think that they think about their grandchildren. they do not stop to realize that there is no way they can escape. they think they can go off and hide somewhere? we breathe the same air. we drink the water. it is contaminated with chemicals and things. i should slow down and let you talk. host: you might be interested in our 8:30 segment, we will have bob james from the natural

resources defense council, and he wrote a book called for "reckless." here are some things that our last caller brought up. host code that comes to us from "the new york times." this story from "the new york times" is from a couple of months ago and is about the lack of environmental issues in campaign 2012. the world being a distant memory of four years ago, when been green was so popular.

host: we will talk more about that at 8:30 with bob dean. kim, south carolina, what are you waiting to hear about? caller: i am waiting to hear more about what he is planning to cut. i know that he cannot give us all of that, because he wants to make a deal with congress and everything. host: are you talking about one candidate in particular? or both of them? caller: mitt romney. he has changed so many times, i want some signal on where he is going to cut. host: you can join the conversation on safes -- on facebook, that is where this comes from --

host: what information do you need to decide your vote? joshua, good morning. caller: good morning. there are a few issues that are not being discussed in the election. we have got this two-party system that is just sound bites, bickering. the libertarian candidates and jill stein, they are both offering revolutionary ideas. and um yeah, i would like more choice. host: we will talk more about third-party candidates this morning. but first, an obituary.

arlen specter has passed away. a champion of moderation. host: let's look at what president obama had to say about his death.

host: arlen specter, of course, is in our video archives after his many years in the senate. he also appeared on our oral history program back in february of last year talking about his involvement in the clarence thomas hearing. let's take a listen to what he had to say. [video clip] >> i found myself to be the focus of a lot of media attention and that did not surprise me. this was a big matter. this was a nomination to the supreme court of the united states of a 43-year-old man.

an african-american nominated to replace thurgood marshall. he was the man whose views whose views did not coincide with mine. how that would affect him on the court, i do not know. we had a young woman who had stepped forward to testify, to bring certain facts forward to the public that were very stark and had attracted a lot of attention. later i was told that people were watching it around the world in different time zones. that this was something that

they were riveted to. and people still are. so, was i surprised that there was this tremendous amount of attention and focus on the attention? nope. host: guestthis is from "usa to"

host: as mentioned, senator arlen specter died yesterday. a funeral service has been announced at the heart of zion temple in penn valley, pa.. our question for you this morning is -- what do you need to decide your vote in campaign 2012? we are asking about this from our undecided voters, primarily. our last caller discussed third-party candidates. host: jack, sydney, montana, what information do you need to

some information about the third party candidates. let's go to jack in sydney, montana. what informatino do you need?

caller: i would like to know who paid for the obama book when he got out of college. i don't understand. they don't know how you can conceal your record. also, there is some stuff on the internet that obama -- obama was speaking with a tag on it. it's never been aired. how can this be kept quiet? host: sounds like you have left -- made up your mind. caller: i could say the same thing about mitt romney, who destroyed his computers to hide his records. host: do you think that's he should release more of his tax returns? caller: i do not care. that is his business. talking about a 47%, that is a true statement. turning this around, it is like what is going on in libya. the butt is supposed to stop somewhere.

host: sounds like you have made up your mind. what are you are -- what are you on the fence about? caller: how can we know who to vote for when the truth is not out there. host: alonso. louisiana. good morning. caller: this last caller is a prime example as to what is going on with this election. everyone wants to think that mr. obama is some sort of secret muslim with a secret agenda. i mean, it is bull. the man is a wonderful person. the first black man to be on the harvard law review, a constitutional scholar. come on. host: have you made up your mind? caller: i saw cnn with the

green party candidates and the votes advocating the legalization of marijuana. we fought that battle back in the 70's. i was smoking a little bit myself. i do not today, but the whole point of it is that young people are going to try things, there is nothing you can keep from them. generation after generation, they said rock'n'roll was horrible, the devil landaulet stuff. the point is, mr. romney and mr. obama could strip naked and walk out in public and there would still be people wanting to know what they have got to hide.

host: let's look at some comments coming to us from facebook. host: you can join the conversation on facebook by looking for c-span and weighing in there. michael, good morning. caller: good morning. give me a couple of feet minutes, please. ralph nader is an arab. host: what does he have to do with this election? caller: he disrupted the last election between george w. bush and al gore. he never talks about religion because he is an arab. host: what do you think about campaign 2012 and your vote? have you decided who you are voting for? caller: yes. host: well, we are talking to undecided voters this morning. robert, michigan, are you with us?

caller: [unintelligible] host: we are having some phone trouble there, so we're going on to our next call. gino, rhode island. caller: i just want to talk about the fact that i want to see someone say something about our inadequate tax laws. you have these foreign corporations, american corporations that operate overseas and pay no taxes. companies like general electric, apple, mobile, exxon, they make huge amounts of money. they have to dollar or $3 trillion and will not bring that-- they have $2 trillion or $3 trillion and will not bring that money into the united states unless they get some kind of special tax deal.

the last time they repatriated any money it was at 5%. these corporation should be paying 30%. they want to wait until they pass a wall where they can bring the money back with no taxes, or 5%. we also have the fact that people like gates and buffett turn their money, $120 billion, so they will not have to pay taxes, into charitable trusts. seems a lot of people are doing that. this takes billions of dollars off of the tax rolls. i want to hear what the presidential candidates are going to do about these inequities in the tax system. host: george, louisville, colorado, good morning. caller: i think i am mainly

undecided about the issue of the middle-class voter. i was watching yesterday morning before it started and they had a small clip on from the 2000 debate between bush and core. you could have just superimpose the images on there. they were talking about the tax cut for the rich and the middle-class. here it is, 12 years later. to borrow a line from them, from the conservative, keep the middle class? how was that working out for you? we know where the menu is heading. i am just wondering which candidate truly cares about the

middle-class and if the middle class is just been used at election time. host: are there specific messages or areas of the middle class, and come, that you want to hear talk about? -- income, they you want to hear talked about? caller: i would like to hear exactly what would be put into place for the middle class and to keep the further shrinking from happening. host: ok. "the new york times" magazine section yesterday had a piece that was on the election and how would was supposed to be on competing visions, but has become how much we all have in common. >> we are leaving to go live to

ohio for the u.s. senate debate between incumbent senator sherrod brown and his challenger, josh mandel. brown has been in office since 2007. mandel is the current ohio state treasurer and is a marine who spent two tours in iraq. this is courtesy of wviz. quite proud to support the presentation of the city club of cleveland forum. >> support for closed captioning transcript is provided by the nordson corporation foundation. [applause]

>> there are many other organizations that have tables today and/or recognized by the program and we thank you for your support. we would like to recognize our media partners. we're pleased to have ideastream, our casting partner. every week, they broadcast the city club forum on 90.3 and sunday mornings at 10 on wviz. the ceo of ideastream is here. and tv 3 is providing a live satellite uplink. they are represented by rita. will the three of you please stand and be recognized? [applause] >> the television broadcast of

the city club also receives substantial support from cleveland state university and pnc bank. more informations, please visit our web site, cityclub.org. we recognize a generous endowment gift. would you please stand and be recognized? [applause] now, we are about ready for today's main event, the debate. our moderator is karen, the chief of the ohio state house news bureau. we just want to make sure we have the microphone set for the broadcasting we will start in just a moment. good afternoon. i am the president of the city

club of cleveland and i'm pleased to welcome you to the debate between sherrod brown and josh mandel. today's debate is being broadcast live on wviz pbs, 90.3, and made available statewide by wkyc. she's the bureau chief of the state wide news bureau and is the moderator for today's debate. karen, it is all yours. >> thank you, hugh. i'm delighted to moderate this debate between sherrod brown m and joshandel. this has been the most exciting raise and a large portion of the money spent has come from outside ohio due in no part to the potential for a political shift in the senate. i will let them outlined their

qualification than support. this debate will be about one hour long split into four segments. there is five minutes for both an opening statement and were bottle. it is their choice as to how they want to use that time. we will hear from each candidate twice, and opening statement by each, a were bottled by each, with a total of five minutes. then we will have questions from 36 -- three distinguished hire journalists. then we will have questions from the audience and the panelists and then we will have closing remarks. we're pleased to welcome you today. i know many of you support one or the other and we appreciate you giving everyone a chance to be heard by holding your applause. mr. brown will present first. >> thank you. it's an honor for my family and i to join you today. my wife, connie, who has spoken at the city club in number of

times. thank you, mayor jackson, for hosting us and thank you to the wait staff for your service. in 2006, i stood here at the city club promising one thing -- that would buy for the middle class. that's what i have done for the last six years and today renewed that pledge for a second term. one of my most important jobs is to listen and to learn. as your senator, i went to more than 200 round table listening to farmers, small-business people, educators, and veterans. i asked questions and take questions from democrats, republicans, washington. farmers told us how we could save tens of billions of taxpayer dollars by eliminating the wasteful farm subsidies and come at the same time, strengthen the safety net for

family farmers. i went to work with senator soon from south dakota and we wrote legislation -- senator thune that was passed as part of the farm bill in july. they talk about how difficult it is to find qualified employees. i wrote legislation with a republican from missouri to help the community colleges to turn our local work force training to be more attuned with local business needs. veterans told me that the job skills they acquired in the military that they wanted to put to work here at home. the only ohioan to have a full term on the veterans committee, we want to help. in the fall of 2008, i remember vividly number of conversations with small business owners with workers in the automobile

industry. i saw the fear in his face and the anxiety in his voice that he worried about the plant closings. how can i provide for my family, pay my mortgage? how can my daughter continue her education at community college? so i went to work to come first with president bush in fall 2008 and then with president obama in 2009 with dick lugar, carl levin, senators from all over this part of the country. it's not just about the big assembly plants in toledo, but it's about components in brunswick, the steel and aluminum made in this city. we talk about the owner of the diner and the manufacturers. there are real problems, real hopes and dreams. yet, josh mandel says my vote

for the autumn rescue was on american. an american. -- unamerican. i say that's doing my job to fight for their jobs. [applause] >> mr. mandel, you have five minutes total. [applause] >> thank you very much. i'm treasurer of the state of ohio and i have the opportunity to travel the state quite a bit. i've come to know a lot of elected leaders throughout our state. these elected leaders have a variety of the goals. some of them, by the time they are 40 they want to be a congressman, or by the time they are 51 to be governor, or by the time they are 60 they want to be a senator. i try to keep my goals relatively simple. by the time i'm 36, i just hope to be shaving.

[laughter] walking in, one of the waitresses asked how old i am. i'm 35 years old born and raised right here in cleveland, ohio. i appreciate the city club giving us the opportunity to debate and i appreciate the business is sponsoring this and also the wait staff and giving us this opportunity. my grandparents came over here on christmas day, 1949, and they ended up in cleveland, ohio. my grandfather got a job through the united autoworkers union and my grandmother worked at a drugstore for over 20 years. their daughter, my mother come or to the public schools for over 20 years. i went to ohio state and got a law degree from case western. i decided to join the marine corps to say thank you to this country that gave my family a

shot. that's not a unique story. everyone of you out here can tell a similar story about your family. emigrants coming over here, one generation sacrificing, the next generation a little better, the next generation a little better than that. unfortunately, for the first time as i can remember traveling the state, i come across many women telling me, for the first time in my life, i'm concerned that my kids and my grandkids may not happen the same opportunities that i had. they tell me about their struggles. one reason they are concerned is because they believe washington is broken. i agree. i think washington is broken because of the career politicians who care more about their party than they do their state. i believe washington can take a

lesson from ohio. let me tell you what we have done in the treasury office. i came in the wake of the u.s. credit rating being downgraded for the first time in america's history. we have earned the highest rating on our bonds, our investments, the a.a.a. rating. we had a net rate in the ohio enterprise bond. the portfolio is up over $2 billion since the day i took office. we voluntarily cut our budget two years in a row. imagine those kind of results in washington. imagine that kind of fiscal responsibility in washington. ladies and gentleman, and running for the united states senate because washington is broken. if i want to turn ohio and washington back in a place where all of you know your kids and grandkids will have at least the same opportunity you had, if not better. unfortunately, that's not the case right now. i'm running for the senate to change washington. we can all agree washington is

broken and the only way to change it is by changing the people we send there. [applause] >> you have one minute 37 seconds for your rebuttal, mr. brown. >> i told you how proud i was to work across the party lines to solve big problems and work on big issues. i'm proud to have burned the endorsement of two groups that do not often endorsed democrats, the fraternal order of police and the society of certified public accountants. they recognize the differences in this race like medicare. i'm fighting to preserve it as a benefit. josh wants to privatize the internet over to the insurance agency. i work for taxpayer subsidies to move them away from big banks and move them to pell grants. he would give extra tax cuts to millionaires. i would work to pass a bipartisan jobs bill supported by senator port land to level

the playing field for ohio manufacturers when china manipulate their currency. josh opposes it. for the auto rescue, i worked to save 800,000 jobs and he was on the other side of it. listen to those who follow these races most closely. i am proud to earn the endorsement of newspapers all over the state, most of them who did not endorse me in 2006, the beacon general, the youngstown indicator, the athens news and the chronicle. these papers do not trust his judgment because he hired the political party to do his job. they do not trust him because he believes in the same trickle- down economics that got us into this situation in the first place. i believe we need to grow the economy by focusing on the middle class and the enforcement of trade rules and all the issues of the audio rescue. this is not a game. this is about real people.

>> mr mandel, 1 minute 19 seconds for your role model. -- rebuttal. [applause] >> you just heard by congress had a 10% approval rating, the lowest in the history of the united states because sherrod brown and other career politicians blamed the problems everywhere except on their cells and refused to take accountability. he says one thing in a high of yet a different thing in washington. six years ago, he lambaste his opponent for high unemployment rates. today, unemployment is higher. ed hisars ago he lambast di opponent for being partisan. evoked with president obama 95% of the time. he has not even passed a budget in over three years. he railed against china and you will hear more of that today,

but you will not hear it is in washington, they have not put $1 trillion on the back of your kids and grandkids from china. in washington, he voted for the largest bank bailout in american history. he claims he's fighting for the middle class. yet, in a time in washington, unemployment is up, gas prices are up, tuition is up, health care prices up, foreclosure up. senator, that's quite a record. ladies and gentleman, he has failed the middle class and he has failed our state. >> over time. >> the only time we will change that is with the new people in washington. >> out of time. thank you. [applause] now we will turn to questions from our panelists. i would like to introduce them to you. senior political correspondent for wkyc, 3. politics writer for the plain dealer. each panelist will ask one

question at a time. candidates will have one minute to respond to each question and i reserve the right to ask follow-up questions. there is 30 seconds to respond to a follow-up question. tom, your first. >> mr. mandel, first question for you. we have heard you say over and over again that if you got to washington would not allow yourself to be bullied by political bosses, lobbyists, or allow anyone to dictate how you vote. you have already signed a pledge with the grover norquist americans for tax reform. are you already sacrificing your independence by agreeing to vote as they dictate? why did you sign that? what's the significance? why did you tie your own hands behind your back? "you get one minute to answer and 30 seconds to respond, mr. brown. >> i'm proud to stand up for

lower taxes in our state and country which is consistent with my record. i led the charge on the first property-tax for any municipality right here in the county. as a state legislator, i advocated to eliminate the death tax, on which i feel is a double form of taxation which is why it has become the second capital of ohio. we want to eliminate the death tax right here in ohio so we can achieve more small-business is here to keep our international property year. as a u.s. senator, i will do everything i can to advocate for lower taxes across the board for the middle class and others, job creators as well. we cannot tax our way to prosperity. if we're going to grow the economy is in ohio and nationally, we need a simpler tax code with lower tax rates, a broader base, and more fair to the middle class. a lot of republicans do not like to hear this, but when general

electric -- ne >> your time is up. mr. brown, 30 seconds to respond. [applause] >> signing a pledge to a fat cat lobbyists it is giving away your right to think, which is what that is doing. you'll never get to a balanced budget because we are just asking higher-income people to play more like they did in the clinton years. do you what else that means? it means you cannot close tax loopholes to subsidies that we continue to give to oil companies. it means you cannot close the loophole if it shuts down and they lose their operations overseas. they can get a tax break to do that. there's no sense in that kind of tax policy. >> time is up, thank you. let's turn to henry gomez. you have the next question. >> senator brown, free trade

with colombia and south korea were among the few bright spots of bipartisanship last year. what would your threshold be? i know you voted against all three, but what is your threshold when determining whether to support a free trade bill with another country? >> you have one minute, mr. brown. >> the farm bill, the transportation bill, many of the highway bills, those are things that we have worked on. these trade agreements clearly spell out the middle class. we had a $1 billion trade deficit with china and today it's $10 billion. it is because we have been forced trade laws finally in this country that president obama has done it better than anyone since reagan where we have more steel jobs in cleveland and surrounding areas. we have more tired jobs, aluminum jobs. i have written trade

legislation that, if enacted as part of the trans-pacific partnership, it would make a difference in putting trade agreements on the side of american workers and american manufacturers. we have betrayed the middle- class. we know when these chinese trade agreements have done. >> mr. mandel. [applause] >> please, if you can hold your applause, it makes things move more quickly. >> i need to correct the first, and the senator made. you take a backseat to everyone when it comes to bipartisanship. remain the most liberal senator in the united states of america. [applause] when sherrod brown went to washington, our trade gap has grown 16 times greater with china. today in ohio, one in four people is in poverty. that's a record of failure. >> the next question. >> mr. mandel, i would like for

you to clarify your position on the 2009 auditor rescue. you believe that the automobile bailout has turned to be a boon for the ohio economy and that mitt romney was wrong in advocating against taxpayer assistance. >> one >> this is a issue that is personal for me. my grandfather was a member of the united autoworkers union. i will take a backseat to no one when it comes to fighting for automobile jobs and protect our jobs and to grow them here in the state of ohio. one of the problems with politicians in washington is that they create these problems. bad energy policy, bad tax policy, bad regulatory policy, and then they tried to take credit for solving them. i would not have voted for that. it stripped the middle class retiree pensions. 60 and 70 year-old woman lost

almost all of their pensions. think about the mechanics here who lost their jobs. i could not have supported a process that stripped pensions and jobs from mechanics and salesman throughout the state. i would do everything i could in washington to grow the economy through a strong manufacturing policy, but i'm not a bailout senator. he is a bailout senator. he bailed out fannie and freddie and the automobile corporations. >> mr. brown, 30 seconds. >> the steel and aluminum are made right here in cleveland and the transmission comes out of toledo. these are real jobs for real people. that's a big part of the reason that, before the auto bailout, in early 2010, the unemployment rate was over 10.5% and now with under 7%. it's not good enough, but we are going in the right direction. he would be so out of step with

senator blagojevich and senators and congressmen of both parties to be against the ottoman rescued just boggles my mind. [applause] -- against the automobile rescue and it just boggles my mind. >> next question. >> did you believe the stimulus bill has been a success or failure in ohio, specifically ohio? it is a glass half full question. given the state of the federal deficit, would you be in favor of any more federal spending, infrastructure, or other job creation programs to stimulate the economy in the future? >> since this is for both of you, you each have one minute. we will start with senator brown. >> the recovery act worked. the unemployment rate came down, not as much as people hoped it would, but it began to come down. the problems were much more serious in 2008 than anyone

understood. one-third of the people in ohio got a tax cut. millions of dollars came in the state to keep teachers and firefighters and police officers on the job. as a result of the recovery act, we have that steel mill in lorraine. what i would do instead right now is to ask the speaker john boehner to look at the bipartisan jobs bill, the largest to pass the senate in 2011. senator portland voted for it. it will level the playing field with the chinese currency. it's time to stand up for the middle class, workers, and manufacturers. >> mr. mandel, 1 minute. [applause] >> with all due respect, you have had 20 years to try and solve these problems and it's only got worse. 20 years. [applause] >> please. >> on employment is up, gas prices is up, foreclosures up,

health-care costs up. i mentioned it earlier and i will mention it again. that is a record of failure. the stimulus did not work. they took $500 million of tax money from throughout america. they sent it to california to invest in a company with a loan guarantee, solyndra, that went bankrupt. accurately the state of ohio, one in every four children is in poverty. that's a record you should be ashamed of. [applause] >> henry, the next question. >> i'm not for the bailout -- >> we're moving on to henry's question. >> this question is for you. you criticize your opponent two years ago for shuffling his campaign workers ought to the public payroll yet the dayton daily news and others have

reported you followed suit. you hired workers to work in the state treasury office. house is that a double standard? what assurances do we have the you'll make federal appointments based on merit and not to help you win? >> you have one minute. >> the comparison is apples and oranges. the people we hired into our office are qualified professionals. i believe there records speak for themselves. let's talk about the record. when the credit rating was downgraded, we have earned the highest rating on our bonds, on our investments. we have increased this by $2 billion. we have never graded -- we have navigated european debt crisis. compare this to washington. the american credit rating downgraded for the first time in american history. forget the balanced budget. they cannot even pass one in

three years. senator brown says passing a budget is not that meaningful. i would take a team of qualified professionals in the office and back it up against anyone in your office and i would let them change washington as well. >> mr. brown, 30 seconds. >> i think the biggest reason ohio newspapers have overwhelmingly endorsed me when they did in 2000 -- when they did not fit in 2006 as they do not trust the way he runs his office. he does not show up for work. he hires his cronies. he will not stand up for the middle class. he was against the odder rescue, does not want to do anything about china, once more tax cuts for the rich. these tax cuts for the rich mean more cuts to a head start, food stands, the basic safety net that america needs in ohio. [applause] >> we want to hear more from the

candidates. next question. >> this is for senator brown. every other level of government has to live within the revenue that it brings in. there have been efforts in congress to raise taxes on the wealthy which seems to be in a stalemate. until such time that congress is able to raise more taxes, does congress have the moral responsibility to live within the revenue it generates? >> we do and we have moved in that direction. is a good republican talking point that we have not passed a budget. it's a resolution. we pass a budget control act which was a bipartisan act and signed by the president. it cuts $2 trillion in spending. $2 trillion. we have got to do better. we need to look at revenues. we need to look across the board

at cuts. we also know that you do not sign a tax pledge by a lobbyist named rover norquist saying will never caught oil subsidies and he will never stand up to those companies so they can keep their dividend tax breaks. that is the wrong direction to get our budget in order. >> mr. mandel, 30 seconds. >> that is washington speak. here's the reality. it has been three years since they passed a budget in washington. can any of you run a small business for three weeks without passing or discussing the budget? can you go three months without discussing your family finances? it has been three years since they have passed a budget. federal spending in washington has doubled. the debt has quadrupled. they live by one set of rules. [applause]

>> we will go to the final questions from our panelists. >> a question for both of you. do you believe that current federal and state regulations are adequate to protect the public from environmental dangers dealing with fracking and disposing of the the disposing of those dangerous liquids in injection wells, and had the balance the need to protect the environment but still not threaten the job creation potential of this industry and state? >> you both have one minute to respond. mr. brown? >> we have made great strides in this country in energy independent. two criteria that will affect my decision on shale development. the decision by communities and what they will permit in their areas, so that cities have some local control and say on this, and concerns about the water supply, make sure this is done properly. significant job growth potential

in this state. i believe in job growth and energy across the board. it means solar, batteries, lithium batteries, biomass -- across the board. i do not by the false choice that it is good environment for good jobs policy. we have seen that in the auto industry. we have seen mpg go up and a thriving on of industry, because of the work that senator voinovich, president bush, president obama and i did. >> i am not sure if anybody knows what he said, but that is washington speak. i believe the first-aid and america to ensure when companies are drilling here in ohio through fracking, they have to make known to us the chemicals being used in the process.

i applaud the justice for doing that. i believe in drilling for oil and gas in a responsible way, in a way that protect the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, and the environment. as long as we can do it responsibly, it is a win-win. affordable energy for our state, affordable energy for senior citizens to warm up their homes, a stronger tax base to pay for our schools, educate our kids, pay for our senior citizens. national security. we are most safe here in view as when we produce energy here in the united states. as a united states senator, i will make sure that we have aggressive oil and gas drilling, right here in the state of ohio. >> these questions will be interspersed with questions from panelists on stage. questions will be answered with

a one-minute time limit. questions addressed to both will be one minute each. to the audience, thank you for your cooperation in making your questions. they should be brief questions, concise as possible. first question please? mr. mandl, my question is on your last election, you implied that your opponent was a muslim, and by implication, you said it was not a good thing to be a muslim. why is it not good -- what isn't so bad to be a muslim in america? >> i appreciate that question. i spent 15 months of my life doing everything i could to protect muslims in iraq. i believe we need to do everything we can to make sure that innocent muslims, christians, jews, or anyone of any religion has protection in

america and throughout the world. one of my main problem with radical islam is that women in the middle east are treated like garbage. in so many countries they are treated as second-class citizens, and it is not fair. this is an issue that all of us can agree on. this is something we can work on together. we can go on the attack, not in a military way, but in an intellectual way, and take on this issue of women in the middle east being treated as second-class citizens. it is not ok for women in saudi arabia to be stoned if they have the audacity to go out in public wearing blue jeans. womannot ok for the same in the middle east to be raped and then put in jail. i am working in a bipartisan way to put an end to issues like that. >> we have issue of women in the seen a pattern of

these kinds of campaigns from jon mandel. attack, attack. and does not need a lot of substance, as long as you attack. we saw this in 2010. the paper that did not endorse me six years ago said that voting for jon mandel would be to award one of the nastiest campaigns ever waged in this state. i do not want just conservative talking points. i want to talk about what the ottoville ski mean, what does china policy mean? what do we do with community schools and colleges to grow jobs in this state? >> back to the audience for another question. >> senator brown, in light of the tremendous budget issues that we face -- [inaudible] cut some spending. how are you -- [inaudible] of

>> this question was to whom? >> [inaudible] >> senator brown. did you hear the question? >> i did. i convene every year in washington college presidents to talk about how we can have better access, share ideas to have middle-class, working class kids go to college. one way we do not do that is more tax cuts for the rich. you have got to interesincreased interest on loans. has happened too much in the past decade when the whole government was focused on more tax cuts for the rich, a war that was not paid for, a medicare giveaway to the drug companies. we need to get our fiscal house in order. we need to balance revenues and cut, but we need to invest in the future, and including community colleges is one of our

most important investments in the future. >> as i mentioned, my mom has a degree in early childhood education. i am a strong supporter of public education and affordable higher education. unfortunately, regardless of what he says here in ohio, in washington, his votes and his record have produced higher tuition here in ohio. so you cannot talk about representing the middle-class and then go to washington and vote for policies that create higher tuition rates for the middle-class, right here in ohio. >> this question is for both. the fiscal cliff flumes. what should happen in a lame- duck session to address this cocktail of tax hikes and spending cuts? what kind of deal would you do to make this happen? >> we certainly need a balanced approach, surely, in a lame duck

session, to tell the markets that we are serious about this. i take a backseat to nobody. my opponent's comments notwithstanding. i was part of the 1990 budget deal that led to not only 21 million private sector net jobs increase, it also led to the largest budget surplus in american history. what happened after that? the iraq war, was not paid for, i voted against it. the minute case and give away too drug companies, that was not paid for. >> watch it happen in the next few months to fix these problems? >> do i get a whole minute now? he interrupted me. fair enough. it needs a balanced approach. i take a backseat to nobody in working on the budget in spite of the talking points that my

opponent repeats over and over again. >> mr. mandel, you have one minute. >> henry, i appreciate you interjecting their. in washington, they call this gobbledygook, but they have not passed a budget. six years ago, he stood on the stage and ran tv ads against mike dewine, lambasting him for not passing a budget. they have not passed any budget. let me tell you about some of my ideas to balance the budget. first, we should not have military bases in germany and italy and england. we are not fighting the nazis or the cold war anymore. why do we have a footprint in europe? bring them home and use the money to pay down the debt, and use them to protect social security and medicare for the current generation and the next generation. no more molotch -- wall street bailout. use that money here.

third, a few months ago, sharon brown voted to give $1 billion of your tax money to pakistan -- >> thank you. let's go back to the audience for the questionnext question. >> this is a question for our current senator sherrod brown. you have told us in your campaign that you were all about jobs for the middle-class, here in ohio, that you are all about giving us less expensive energy, yet, you and your administration -- and i say your administration in washington because you vote 95% of the time with the administration -- have declared a war on coal here in ohio. >> we need to get to the question please. >> if you support the war on coal from this is administration, which is closing power plants -- in fact,

the one that is four miles from your house -- >> please get to the question. >> how do you support jobs and cheaper energy in ohio when you do that? >> mr. brown, one minute, mr. mandl, 30 seconds. >> there were more and jobs produced in ohio than five years ago in spite of the talking points, and the efforts of a coal mine owner in southern rawhided do whatever he is doing. the unemployment in ohio is coming down. it is not where we want it to be, but it went from over 10.5% in 2010, to under 7% today. that is because of our efforts in the audio rescue. that is because of our small business tax breaks and because what we're doing to support community colleges, what we are doing to support nasa working with ohio state, working in dayton, all the kinds of things i'm doing behind the scenes and individually working with groups

and people to create jobs in the state. >> mr. mandel, 30 seconds. >> there is a war on coal in this country. while president obama is the general, sherrod brown is his lieutenant. the ohio manufacturers association estimates one new regulation, utility mass will cost of high of 50,000 manufacturing jobs. when this came up for a vote in the senate, sharon brown and joe manchin from west virginia had a difficult decision because they are in heavy coal states and manufacturing states. at the end of the day, joe manchin from west virginia took on his party -- >> mr. mandel -- we have to take another question from the audience please. >> this question is for senator brown. i have been doing a lot of

reading, and i read that when you ran for office, you were in favor of term limits and that you would stop running for office after 12 years. number one, i wanted to know why you broke that pledge, why you broke your word to the people, and are you going to stop running for office? >> mr. brown, one minute. >> not exactly. i was wrong, i made a mistake. i also know that when i am opposed by somebody, who in seven years has run for four different offices, who promised in 2010 that he would serve his four-year term in the state treasury, and then in weeks was flying off to places, like the bahamas, to raise money from payday lenders, raising money for the senate race, and he has the nerve to encourage his friends to ask questions about term limits when he clearly has no regard for any of that.

>> mr. mandel? please, let us keep this moving. >> i cannot answer his question. he already did it. he made a mistake. he lied to the people of ohio. >> please. >> he told the people that he would only stay in washington for 12 years. after 12 years, he has broken that pledge. he has been there for 20. when we came into the senate, average income, $53,000. today, $44,000. >> back to our panel of journalists. >> this question is for mr. mandela. as unpopular as obamacare is among conservatives, there are some elements of the planet have

popular support, for example, allowed young people to stay on their parents' insurance plan until 26, allowing people to have insurance with pre-existing conditions. with specificity, how would you maintain those benefits without the requirement of people buying insurance? >> you have to make cuts in other parts of the government. in order to cover pre-existing conditions with young adults, on their parents' insurance, if there are leaders in washington and want to do that, without obamacare on the books, you have to make cuts. a lot of republicans will say do not touch defense, the military. if we are going to have a good fit conversation about health care and a balanced budget, we to make cuts in defense. i mention some of my ideas in relation to europe. i mentioned pakistan, but i want to get specific. our egypt embassy was overrun. in libya, our ambassador was killed.

why in the world is sharon brown and other politicians in washington voted to give our tax dollars to countries that harbor terrorists, women in that money here to pay for health care, medicare, to protect social security? it does not make sense. they are going to hate us without us doing that. we do not need to pay them. >> mr. brown? >> about as specific and answer that he has given on health care this whole campaign. the point is this, there are 1.2 million senior citizens in ohio now that have gone checkups with no coakley or deductible. more than 200,000 seniors and ohio have saved $600 on their drug costs, the people that fell into the doughnut hole. families with diabetic or asthmatic children do not lose their health insurance now because we build consumer protections in there for those families. that is what this is about. that is why i am proud to support it.

>> back to the audience for a question. >> this question is for jon mandel. mr. mandel, to run the campaign, whenever you are asked about abortion, your answer is very simple and direct. you say you are pro-life. but there are millions of american women who would like to know more about that because this reverses weighed, decades ago -- roe v wade, decades ago, hundreds of thousands of women having legal abortions -- >> could we have the question please? >> if you were a senator of the united states, what would you do to implement the supreme court decision which made legal under roe v wade a woman's right to have an abortion? >> to your question, i do not believe it is the role of a u.s. senator to implement a supreme court decision like that. it is the role of a united

states senator to advise. i will take seriously my role, especially if i'm put on the judiciary committee, to vote for justices that i believe understand the constitution, understand that it is a document drafted many years ago by folks who had a vision for our country, and understood that vision seriously. i am pro-life. i believe in protecting life. i will do everything i can to protect innocent life. at the same time, the three main issues i am facing in the senate are these, jobs, jobs, jobs. any of you sick of the unemployment rate, sick of high gas prices, tuition rates, i am your guy because he failed. >> mr. brown? >> on light josh mandel, i trust ohio women to make their own health care decisions.

first, i would vote to not answer, but that has been part for the course for the debate, for his 18-month campaign. i would also note, to jon mandel's position on abortion, it is more extreme than his tours for president. no consideration for rape or incest. that is so far out of the mainstream of ohio women's views, as we all know. >> back to the balcony for another question from the audience. >> this question is for mr. mandel. i was looking over your record before i came to the debate today. i was happy to hear before i ask the question how much you support women in muslim countries. my question is, your record shows your opposition is for equal pay for equal work, which affects american women. you support the part b bill,

which affects american women and a high women. the question is, what can you tell us today to give the women and men who love them the confidence to support you, when your stated position clearly does not support them? >> i appreciate the question. i would like to recognize my wife who is here. my wife has been a rock for may. she has been supportive to me a long hallway. i know my mother and sister are somewhere back there as well. i am a son, brother, and has been as well. i am proud to have a good mix of democratic and independent and republican women supporting my campaign. around the state of ohio, what i hear time and again from women is that they are concerned that their kids cannot find a job after high school or college. that will be my focus.

the number one issue facing women, our kids and grandkids, is jobs. unfortunately, our high unemployment rate has gone even higher since sherrod brown took office. it is a record of failure. when i talk to women in ohio, they wanted to focus on a better economic environment for their kids. i will take a backseat to no one would comes to that. >> mr. mandel. mr. brown, would you like to address that question? >> first of all, extremism in women's health is not helpful to women in the state. i also understand it is a woman's issue, of course, to provide jobs for working women. yesterday, i was with my wife in a grocery store. i met a woman who was working her second job. she has three kids in college. not more tax cuts for the rich, but it is important that we --

would you do when you increase tax cuts for the rich, you undercut telegrams. we have to let that woman give her kids the chance to go to college. >> we are now at the closing statements for each candidate. each candidate will have two and a half minutes to make their remarks. mr. brown, you are first. >> thank you. this election is not about personal ambition and moving up the ladder, not about clever pull tested sound bites, but about making washington work for all ohioans. above all, insuring that the people work hard and play by the rules. my opponent believes in the same trickle-down economics that led to years of stagnant economic growth and put our economy on the brink of collapse. i believe you build the economy by investing in a middle-class and growing from there. simply put, and josh mandel is a politician who cannot be trusted. it is well established that he

cannot show up for work and do the job he was elected to. it is well to establish that josh mandel cannot be trusted to hire financial people, instead hiring his political cronies. he cannot be trusted to tell the truth, as we saw today. everyone here knows that josh mandel cannot be trusted to fight for your job because he is too concerned about running for his next job. most importantly, this election is not about josh grendell or me, but it is about real people with real concerns. on medicare, i want to strengthen medicare. he wants to turn it over to the insurance company. we passed the biggest jobs bill to keep china from cheating. center portman supported it, and jon mandel does not. i thought to freeze interest rates on stafford loans. josh mandel would rather do tax cuts. in the auto industry, we know

that story. he believes you grow the economy from the top down. i believe you invest in the middle-class, that made on a rescue, enforcing trade rules, helping small business, that means investing in community colleges and partner with the private sector to create jobs. you have my commitment. i will continue to get up every day and fight for every job in every way that i know how. [applause] >> mr. mandel? two and a half minutes for your closing statement. >> if you are happy with washington, if you you invest ie middle-class, that made on a rescue, enforcing trade rules, helping small business, that means investing in community think washington is coming along and you are happy with how things are going, if you are part of that 10% of america that approve of the job congress is doing, then he is your guy. but if you are sick of the hyper partisanship, the bickering, the in-fighting, politicians in washington thinking they can live by one set of rule by all of us live by another set of

rules, then i'm your guy. one thing i know for sure, we are not going to change washington by sending sherrod brown there. he has been there for 20 years. he has said two decades to try this. i mentioned in my opening, if you are happy about high and employment rates, sherrod brown is your guy. if you're happy about higher tuition rates for your kids, sherrod brown is your guy. if you are happy with higher government health care costs, he is your guy. if you are happy the government has not passed a budget will you have to manage your finances, sherrod brown is your guy. if you are happy ohio has become an exporter of your kids and grandkids, sharon brown is your guy. but if you want new leadership, you want to take our state and country in a different direction, you want someone who is willing to rise above partisan politics to do what is best for our state and country, then i'm your guy. for this whole campaign and appearing on stage, sherrod

brown blames other people. you hear him blame george bush, you hear him blamed china, but he had borrowed $1 trillion from them. he railed against wall street banks, however, he bailed them out. he railed against mitt romney. if he had enough time, he would probably rail against george romney as well. he is looking for someone to blame, but here is the reality. politicians in washington are not holding themselves accountable. if they are not go to hold themselves accountable, we have to hold them accountable, and the only way to do that is to elect new leaders to washington. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our debate. thank you to the candidates, sherrod brown and john mandel. and thinking to the panelists. and thank you as well, this enthusiastic and engaged audience. the election day is tuesday november 6. of course, you can start voting right now, early>> voting is

underway. this for rum is now adjourned. >> we have more campaign 2012 coverage coming up later today. this evening, we have the indiana senate debate between state treasurer richard murdock and joe donnelly. this race is a tossup. mr. murdoch defeated dick lugar in the may primary for the republican nomination. you will see this debate courtesy of wfyi. live coverage begins at 7:00 eastern. president obama and mitt romney today are rehearsing for their debate tomorrow. here is where their meeting will take place, hofstra university, in hempstead, long island. our reporters will be gathering and filing their reports. inside the building is spin

alley,>> where debate spokes people for each side will come out and convince people about how the performance went. it will be moderated by cnn's candy crowley. >> you can watch and engage as the presidential candidates meet live tomorrow from hofstra university. debate preview will begin at 7:00 eastern.

at 9:00, candy crowley will moderate the town hall debate. 90 minutes of questions from undecided voters. after the debate, we will get your reaction, comments, e- mails, and tweets. up next, a town hall debate from the 2000 presidential campaign when the republican nominee was texas gov. george w. bush and vice president al gore was running on the democrat's ticket. this was the third and final debate of the year held it in washington university in st. louis. this is about 1 hour 45 minutes.

>> good evening from the fieldhouse at washington university in st. louis. i'm jim lehrer of the newshour on pbs. and i welcome you to this third and final campaign 2000 debate between the democratic candidate for president, vice president al gore, and the republican candidate, governor george w. bush of texas. let's welcome the candidates now. [applause]

before proceeding tonight, we would like to observe a moment of silence in memory of gov. mel carnahan of missouri, who, along with his son and his former chief of staff, died in a private plane crash last night near st. louis. >> a a reminder, as we continue now, that these debates are

sponsored by the commission on presidential debates. the formats and the rules were worked out by the commission and the two campaigns. tonight's questions will be asked by st. louis area voters who sponsored by the commission on presidential debates. were identified as being uncommitted by the gallup organization. earlier today, each of them wrote a question on a small card like this. those cards were collected and then given to me this afternoon. my job, under the rules of the evening, was to decide the order the questions will be asked and to call on the questioners accordingly. i also have the option of asking follow-ups, which in order to get to more of the panel's questions, for the record, i plan to do sparingly and mostly for clarifications. the audience participants are bound by the following rule: they shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion. and the questioner's microphone will be turned off after he or she completes asking the question. those are the rules. as in winston-salem last week, no single answer or response from a candidate can exceed two minutes. there is an audience here in

the hall and they have promised to remain absolutely quiet, as did their predecessors this year in boston, danville and winston-salem. before we begin, a correction from last week's debate. i was wrong when i said vice president gore's campaign commercials had called governor bush a bumbler. that specific charge was made in a press statement by gore campaign spokesman mark fabiani, not in a tv guide. >> i'm glad you clarified that. >> in a tv, in a tv ad. now, let's go to the first question of the over 130 questions we received from this panel. >> now, let's go to the first question of over the 130 questions we received from this panel. we will begin with one of the 19 on health issues and it goes to you, mr. vice president and it will be asked by james hankins. mr. hankins? >> how do you feel about h.m.o.'s and insurance companies making the critical decisions that affect people's lives

instead of the medical professionals? and why are the h.m.o.'s and insurance companies not held accountable for their decisions? >> mr. hankins, i don't feel good about it and i think we ought to have a patients' bill of rights to take the medical decisions away from the h.m.o.'s and give them back to the doctors and the nurses. i want to come back and tell you why but if you will forgive me, i would like to say something right now at the beginning of this debate following on the moment of silence for mel carnahan and randy carnahan and chris sifford. tipper and i were good friends with mel and randy and i know that all of us here want to extend our sympathy and condolences to jean and the family and to the sifford faily. and i'd just like to say that this debate in a way is a living tribute to mel carnahan because he loved the vigorous discussion of ideas in our democracy. he was a fantastic governor of

missouri. his state became one of the top five in the nation for health care coverage for children under his leadership, one of the best in advancing all kinds of benefits for children to grow up healthy and strong. and of course, this debate also takes place at a time when the tragedy of the u.s.s. cole is on our minds and hearts. and insofar as the memorial services tomorrow, i would like to also extend sympathy to the families of those who have died and those who are still missing and the injured. now mr. hankins, i think that the situation that you described has gotten completely out of hand. doctors are giving prescriptions, they're recommending treatments and then their recommendations are being overruled by h.m.o.'s and insurance companies. that is unacceptable. i support a strong national patient's bill of rights.

it is actually a disagreement between us. the national law that is pending on this, the dingell- norwood bill, a bipartisan bill, is one that i support and that the governor does not. >> time is up. two minutes response, governor bush. >> i, too, want to extend my prayers to the - and blessings, god's blessings, on the families whose lives were up - overturned yesterday, last night. it was a tragic moment. actually, mr. vice president, it's not true. i do support a national patients' bill of rights. as a matter of fact, i brought republicans and democrats together to do just that in the state of texas, to get a patients' bill of rights through. it requires a different kind of leadership style to do it, though. you see, in order to get something done on behalf of the people, you have to put partisanship aside. and that's what we did in my state. we got one of the most advanced patients' bill of rights. it says, for example, that a

woman doesn't have to go through a gatekeeper, can go to her gynecologist. it says that you can't gag a doctor. a doctor can advise you. the h.m.o., the insurance company, can't gag that doctor from giving you full advice. in this particular bill, it allows patients to choose a doctor, their own doctor if they want to. but we did something else that was interesting. we're one of the first states that said you can sue an h.m.o. for denying you proper coverage. now, there's what's called an independent review organization that you have to go through first. it says if you've got a complaint with your insurance company, you can take your complaint to an objective body. and if the objective body rules on your behalf, the insurance company must follow those rules. however, if the insurance company doesn't follow the findings of the i.r.o., then that becomes a cause of action in a court of law. it's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people.

and i think this is right for the people. you know, i support a national patients' bill of rights, mr. vice president. and i want all people covered. i don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in texas. i think - >> governor, time is up, sir. >> jim, we have a direct disagreement on this. >> just a minute, mr. vice president, i wanted to -you know, the way the rules go here now, two minutes, two minutes and then i'll decide whether we go on. o.k.? >> right. >> so what i want to make sure is we understand here is before we go on to another question in the health area, would you agree that - do you two agree on a national patients' bill of rights? >> absolutely not. i referred to the dingell- norwood bill. it is the bipartisan bill that is now pending in the congress. the h.m.o.'s and the insurance companies support the other bill that's pending, the one that the republican majority has put forward. they like it because it doesn't accomplish what, i think, really needs to be accomplished,

to give the decisions back to the doctors and nurses and to give you a right of appeal to somebody other than the h.m.o. or insurance company, let you go to the nearest emergency room without having to call an h.m.o. before you call 911, to let you see a specialist if you need to. and it has strong bipartisan support. it is being blocked by the republican leadership - >> so - >> - in the congress. and i specifically would like to know whether governor bush will support the dingell-norwood bill which is the main one pending. >> governor bush, you may answer that if you'd like. but also i'd like to know how you see the differences between the two of you, and we need to move on. >> well, the difference is that i can get it done, that i can get something positive done on behalf of the people. that's what the question in this campaign is about. it's not only what's your philosophy and what's your position on issues, but can you get things done? and i believe i can. >> all right. >> what about the dingell- norwood bill?

>> all right, we're going to go now to another - >> i'm not quite through. let me - >> yes, go. >> i talked about the principles and the issues that i think are important in a patients' bill of rights. now, there's this kind of washington, d.c., focus - well, it's in this committee, or it's got this sponsor. if i'm the president, we're going to have emergency room care, we're going to have gag orders, women will have direct access to ob-gyn, people will be able to take their h.m.o. insurance company to court. that's what i've done in texas, and that's the kind of leadership style i'll bring to washington. >> all right, another - the next question also on a health issue. it's from, it will be asked by marie payne clepey and it goes to governor bush. >> are either of you concerned with [inaudible] >> here you go. >> i've got - >> o.k. are either of you concerned with finding some feasible way

to lower the price of pharmaceutical drugs, such as education on minimizing intake, a revamp of the f.d.a. process or streamlining the drug companies' procedures, instead of just finding more money to pay for them? >> well, that's a great question. i think one of the problems we have, particularly for seniors, is there's no prescription drug coverage in medicare, and therefore when they have to try to purchase drugs, they do so on their own. there's no kind of collective bargaining, there's no power of purchasing among seniors. so i think step one to make sure prescription drugs is more affordable for seniors, and those are the folks who really rely upon prescription drugs a lot these days, is to reform the medicare system, is to have prescription drugs as an integral part of medicare once and for all. the problem we have today is that, like the patients' bill of rights, particularly with health care, there's a lot of bickering in washington, d.c. it's kind of like a political issue as opposed to a people issue.

so what i want to do is i want to call upon republicans and democrats to forget all the arguing and finger pointing and come together and take care of our seniors with a prescription drug program that says we'll pay for the poor seniors, we'll help all seniors with prescription drugs. the which is direct money to states so that seniors, poor seniors, don't have to choosein the mea's important to have what's called "immediate helping hand," betwen food and medicine. that's part of an overall overhaul. but purchasing power's important. i'm against price controls.

i think price controls would hurt our ability to continue important research and development. drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines as we used to know it. and one of the most important things is to continue the research and development component, and so i'm against price controls. expediting drugs through the f.d.a. makes sense, of course. allowing the new bill that was passed in the congress made sense to allow for, you know, drugs that were sold overseas to come back, in other countries, to come back into the united states. that makes sense. but the best thing to do is to reform medicare. >> vice president gore, two minutes. >> all right, here we go again. now look, if you want someone who will spend a lot of words describing a whole convoluted process and then end up supporting legislation that is supported by the big drug companies, this is your man. if you want someone who will fight for you and who will fight for the middle-class families and working men and women who are sick and tired of having their parents and grandparents pay higher prices for prescription drugs than anybody else, then i want to fight for you. and you asked a great question, because it's not only seniors. listen, for 24 years i havei thd hurt our ability to continue important research and development.

never been afraid to take on the big drug companies. they do some great things, they've discovered great new cures and that's great, we want them to continue that. but they are now spending more money on advertising and promotion - you see all these ads - than they are on research and development. and they're trying to artificially extend the monopoly patent protection so they can keep charging these very high prices. i want to streamline the approval of the competing generic drugs and the new kinds of treatments that can compete with them so that we bring the price down for everybody. now, briefly, let me tell you how my prescription drug plan works. the governor talked about medicare. i propose a real prescription drug benefit under medicare for all seniors. and here's how it works: you pick your own doctor and nobody can take that away from you. the doctor chooses the prescription that you need and nobody can overrule your doctor. you go to your own pharmacy and

then medicare pays half the price. if you're poor, they pay all of it. if you have extraordinarily high costs, then they pay all over $4,000 out of pocket. and i'll bring new competition to bring the price down. and if you pass the big drug companies' bill, nothing will happen. >> all right, another health question, it comes from vicki french and it's for you, vice president gore. vicki french, where are you? oh there she is. yes. >> we spend billions of dollars every year on taxes or pay billions of dollars in taxes. would you be open to the ideal of a national health care plan for everybody? and if not, why? if so, is it something you would try to implement if you are elected into office and what would you do to implement this plan? >> i think that we should move step by step toward universal health coverage. but i am not in favor of government doing it all. we've spent 65 years now on the development of a hybrid system - partly private, partly public.

and 85 percent of our people have health insurance; 15 percent don't. that adds up to 44 million people. that is a national outrage. we have got to get health coverage for those who do not have it. and we've got to improve the quality for those who do with a patients' bill of rights that's real and that works, the dingell-norwood bill. and we have got to fill in the gaps in coverage by finally bringing parity for the treatment of mental illness because that's been left out. we've got to deal with long-term care. now here are the steps that i would take first of all: i will make a commitment to bring health coverage of high quality that is affordable to every single child in america within four years. and then we'll fill other gaps by covering the parents of those children when the family is poor or up to two and a half times the poverty rate. i want to give a tax credit for the purchase of individual health insurance plans. i want to give small business

employers a tax credit - 25 percent - to encourage the providing of health insurance for the employees in small businesses. i want to give seniors who are - well, the near-elderly. i don't like that term because i'm just about in that category. but those 55 to 65 ought to be able to buy into medicare for premiums that are reasonable and fair and significantly below what they have to get now. now, we have a big difference on this. and you need to know the record here. under governor bush, texas has sunk to be 50th out of 50 in health care - in health insurance for their citizens. last week he said that they were spending $3.7 billion - or $4.7 billion on this. >> mr. vice president - >> o.k. >> governor bush, two minutes. >> i'm absolutely opposed to a national health care plan. i don't want the federal

government making decisions for consumers or for providers. i remember what the administration tried to do in 1993. they tried to have a national health care plan and fortunately it failed. i trust people. i don't trust the federal government. it's going to be one of the themes you hear tonight. i don't want the federal government making decisions on behalf of everybody. there is an issue with the uninsured. there sure is. and we've got uninsured people in my state. ours is a big state, fast- growing state. we share a common border with another nation. but we're providing health care for our people. it's one thing about insurance, that's a washington term. the question is are people getting health care? and we've got a strong safety net. and there needs to be a safety net in america. there needs to be more community health clinics where poor can go get health care. we need a program for the uninsured. they've been talking about it in washington, d.c. the number of uninsured have

now gone up for the past seven years. we need a $2,000 credit, rebate, for people, working people who don't have insurance. they can get in the marketplace and start purchasing insurance. we need to have, allow small businesses to write across - insurance across jurisdictional lines so small business can afford health care. small restaurants can afford health care. and so health care needs to be affordable and available. but we've got to trust people to make decisions with their lives. in the medicare reform i talk about it says if you're a senior you can stay in medicare if you like it and that's fine but we're going to give you other choices to choose if you want to do so. just like they do the federal employees. the people who work in washington, d.c., for the u.s. congress or the united states senate get a variety of choices to make in their lives. and that's what we ought to do for all people in america. >> time. >> yes, sir.

sorry. i'm not paying attention to my light - >> could i have a follow up jim? >> not right now. education. >> i've got to find my light. >> these folks submitted 18 questions on education and the first one that will be asked on education will go to you, governor, and will be asked by angie pettig. angie pettig, where are you? there she is. governor, right there. >> oh, thanks. on education will go to about education and the need to hold teachers and schools accountable, and i certainly agree with that. but as an individual with an educational background and also a parent, i have seen a lot ofh. >> i've heard a lot instances where the parents are unresponsive to the teachers or flat-out uninvolved in their child's education. how do you intend to not only the teachers and schools accountable, but also hold parents accountable. >> well, you know, it's hard to make people love one another. i wish i knew the law, because

i'd darn sure sign it. i wish i knew the law that said all of us should be good parents. one of the things the next president must do is to remind people that if we're going to have a responsible period in america, that each of us must love our children with all our heart and all our soul. i happen to believe strong accountability encourages parental involvement, though. how do you intend to noti thinkd post results on the internet or in the town newspapers, most parents say wait a minute, my child's school isn't doing what i want to do, and therefore become involved in education. i recognize there are some who just don't seem to care. but there are a lot of parents who feel like everything is going well in their child's school and all of a sudden they wake up and realize that wait a minute, standards aren't being met. that's why i'm so strong for accountability. i believe we ought to measure a lot - three, four, five, six, seven, eighth grade. we do so in my state of texas. one of the good things we've done in texas is we've got strong accountability because

you can't cure unless you know. you can't solve a problem unless you diagnose it. i strongly believe that one of the best things to encourage parental involvement also is to know that the classrooms will be safe and secure. that's why i support a teacher liability act at the federal level that says if a teacher or a principal upholds reasonable standards of classroom discipline, they can't be sued. i think parents will be more involved with education when they know their children's classrooms are safe and secure as well. i also believe that we need to say to people that if you cannot meet standards, there has to be a consequence, instead of just kind of the soft bigotry of low expectations, that there has to be a consequence. we can't continue to shuffle children through school. and one of the consequences is to allow parents to have different choices. >> vice president gore? >> yeah. we have a huge cannot meet standards, there has

to difference between us on this question. i'd like to start by telling you what my vision is. i see a day in the united states of america where all of our public schools are considered excellent, world- class; where there are no failing schools; where the classrooms are small enough in size - number of students - so that the teacher can spend enough one-on-one time with each student. now, that means recruiting new teachers for the public schools. it means, in my plan, hiring bonuses to get 100,000 new teachers in the public schools within the next four years. it means also helping local school districts that sometimes find the parents of school-age children outvoted on bond issues - to give them some help with interest-free bonding authority so that we can build new schools and modernize the classrooms. we need to give teachers the training and professional development that they need to - including the paid time off to go visit the classroom of a master teacher and pick up some new skills.

i want to give every middle class family a $10,000-a-year tax deduction for college tuition so that middle-class families will always be able to send their kids on to college. i want to work for universal preschool because we know from all the studies that the - the youngsters learn - kids learn more in the first few years of life than anywhere else. now, i said there was a contrast. governor bush is for vouchers. and in his plan he proposes to drain more money - more taxpayer money out of the public schools for private school vouchers than all of the money that he proposes in his entire budget for schools themselves. and only one in 20 students would be eligible for these vouchers. and they wouldn't even pay the full tuition to private school. i think that's a mistake. i don't think we should give up on the private schools and leave kids trapped in failing schools. i think we - i think we should make it the number-one priority to make our schools the best in the world - all of them.

>> governor, what is your position on that? >> yeah, i appreciate that. i think anytime we end with one of these attacks, it's appropriate to respond. here's what i think. first of all, vouchers are up to states. if you want to do a voucher program in missouri, fine. see, i strongly believe in local control of schools. i'm a governor of a state and i don't like it when the federal government tells us what to do. i believe in local control of schools. but here's what i've said. i've said to the extent we send federal money on disadvantaged children, we want the schools to show us whether or not the children are learning. what's unreasonable about that? we expect there to be standards met and we expect there to be measurement. and if we find success, we'll praise it. but when we find children trapped in schools that will not change and will not teach instead of saying, oh, this is o.k. in america just to shuffle poor kids through schools, there has to be a consequence. and the consequence is that federal portion of federal money will go to the parent so

the parent can go to a tutoring program or another public school or another private - or a private school. you see, there has to be a consequence. we've got a society that says, hey, the status quo is fine, just move them through. and guess who suffers? >> what is the harm on that? what's the other side on that? >> well, the program that he's proposing is not the one that he just described. under your plan, governor bush, states would be required to pay vouchers to students to match the vouchers that the federal government would put up. now, here's - and the way it would happen is that, under his plan, if a school was designated as failing, the kids would be trapped there for another three years and then some of them would get federal vouchers and the state would be forced to - to match those - that money. under my plan if a school is failing, we work with the states to give them the authority and the resources to close down that school and reopen it right away with a new principal, a new faculty, a turnaround team of specialists

who know what they're doing. it's based on the plan of gov. jim hunt in north carolina and it works great. >> so no vouchers under - in a gore administration? >> if i thought that there was no alternative, then i might feel differently. but i have an obligation to fight to make sure there are no failing schools. we've got to turn around - most schools are excellent but we've got to make sure that all of them are. >> andrew kossberg has a related question on education that's right on this subject. mr. kossberg where are you? there you are and it's for vice president gore. >> mr. vice president, in the school district in which i work and in countless others across the nation, we face crumbling school buildings, increased school violence, student apathy, overcrowding, lack of funding, lawsuits, the list goes on.

i could mention low teacher pay but i won't. what can you tell me and my fellow american teachers today about your plans for our immediate future? >> what grade do you teach? >> that's a violation of your rule, vice president gore. >> high school. i mentioned before that the local communities are having a harder time passing bond issues. traditionally if you've been involved in a campaign like that, you know that the parents with kids in school are the ones that turn out and vote. it's ironic that there are now, there's now a smaller percentage of the voters made up of parents with children than ever in american history because of the aging of our population. but at the same time, we've got the largest generation of students in public schools ever. more than 90 percent of america's children go to public

schools. and it's the largest number ever this year and they'll break the record next year and every year for 10 years running. we've got to do something about this. and local - it's not enough to leave it up to the local school districts. they're not able to do it. and our future depends upon it. look, we're in an information age. our economic future depends upon whether or not our children are going to get the kind of education that let's them go on to college. and again, i want to make it possible for all middle-class families to send their kids to college and more pell grants for those who are in the lower income groups also. and then, i want to make sure that we have job training on top of that and lifelong learning. but it all starts with the public school teachers. my proposal gives $10,000 hiring bonuses for those teachers who are - who get certified to teach in the areas where they're most needed. now, accountability? we basically agree on accountability. my plan requires testing of all students.

it also requires something that governor bush's plan doesn't - it requires testing of all new teachers, including in the subjects that they teach. we have to start treating teachers like the professionals that they are, and give them the respect and the kind of quality of life that will draw more people into teaching, because >> governor bush, two minutes. >> when you total up all the federal spending he wants to do, it's the largest increase in federal spending in years. and there's just not going to be enough money. i have been a governor of a big state, i have made education my number one priority. that's what governors ought to do. they ought to say this is the most important thing we do as a state. the federal government puts about 6% of the money up. they put about, you know, 60% of the strings where you have to fill out the paperwork.

i don't know if you have to be a paperwork filler-outer, but most of it's because of the federal government. what i want to do is to send flexibility and authority to the local folks so you can choose what to do with the money. one size does not fit all. i worry about federalizing education if i were you. i believe strongly that the federal government can help, we need to fund headstart. we need to have accountability. the vice president's plan does not have annual accountability, third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade. we need to demand on results. i believe strongly in a teacher protection act like i mentioned. i hear from teachers all the time about the lawsuits and the threats, respect in the classroom. part of it's because you can't -- you can't control the classroom. you can't have a consequence for somebody without fear of getting sued under federal law. so i'm going to ask the congress to pass a teacher protection act.

so i believe in flexibility, i believe in a national reading initiative for local districts to access with k through 2 diagnostic testing, curriculum that works, phonics works, by the way, it needs to be a part of our curriculum. there needs to be flexibility for teacher training and teacher hiring with federal money. the federal government can be a part, but don't fall prey to all this stuff about money here and money there because education is really funded at the local level. 94% comes from the local level. >> vice president gore, is the governor right when he says that you're proposing the largest federal spending in years? >> absolutely not. absolutely not. i'm so glad that i have the chance to knock that down. look, the problem is that under governor bush's plan, $1.6 trillion tax cut, mostly to the wealthy, under his own budget numbers, he proposes spending more money for a tax cut just for the wealthiest 1% than all the new money he budgets for

education, health care and national defense combined. now under my plan we'll balance the budget every year. i'm not just saying this. i'm not just talking. i have helped to balance the budget for the first time in 30 years, paid down the debt. and under my plan, in four years, as the percentage of our gross domestic product, federal spending will be the smallest that it has been in 50 years. one reason is, you know, the third biggest spending item in our budget is interest on the national debt? we get nothing for it. we keep the good faith and credit of the united states. i will pay down the debt every single year until it is eliminated early in the next decade. that gets rid of the third biggest intrusion of the federal government in our economy. now, because the governor has all this money for a tax cut mostly to the wealthy, there is no money left over, so schools get testing and lawsuit reform and not much else.

>> governor, the vice president says you're wrong. >> well, he's wrong. just add up all the numbers. it's three times bigger than what president clinton proposed. the senate budget committee -- >> three times -- excuse me, three times bigger than what president clinton proposed? >> that was in an ad, jim, that was knocked down by the journalists who analyzed the ad and said it was misleading. >> my turn? >> yes, sir. >> forget the journalists. he proposed more than walter mondale and michael dukakis combined. this is a big spender. and he ought to be proud of it, it's part of his record. we just have a different philosophy. let me talk about tax relief. if you pay taxes, you ought to get tax relief. the vice president believes only the right people ought to get tax relief. i don't think that's the role of the president to pick you're right and you're not right. i think if you're going to have tax relief, everybody ought to get it. and therefore, wealthy people

are going to get it. but the top 1% will end up paying one-third of the taxes in america and they get one-fifth of the benefits. and that's because we structured the plan so that six million additional american families pay no taxes. if you're a family of four making $50,000 in missouri, you get a 50% cut in your federal income taxes. what i've done is set priorities and funded them. and there's extra money. and i believe the people who pay the bills ought to get some money back. it's a difference of opinion. he wants to grow the government and i trust you with your own money. i wish we could spend an hour talking about trusting people. it's just the right position to take. >> can we take the time -- >> governor -- yeah, hold on one second here, thought. the governor just reversed the thing. what do you say specifically to what the vice president said tonight, he said it many, many times, that your tax cut benefits the top 1% of the wealthiest americans, and you've heard what he said. >> of course it does. if you pay taxes, you are going to get a benefit.

people who pay taxes will get tax relief. >> all right. why shouldn't they? >> let me finish. under my plan, if you make -- the top -- the wealthy people pay 62% of the taxes today. afterwards they pay 64%. this is a fair plan. you know why? because the tax code is unfair for people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. if you're a single mother making $22,000 a year today and you're trying to raise two children, for every additional dollar you earn you pay a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone making $200,000, and that's not right. so i want to do something about that. >> vice president gore? >> yeah, look. look, this isn't about governor bush, it's not about me. it is about you. and i want to come back to something i said before. if you want somebody who believes that we were better off eight years ago than we are now and that we ought to go back to the kind of policies that we had back then, emphasizing tax cuts mainly for the wealthy, here is your man. if you want somebody who will fight for you and who will fight

to have middle-class tax cuts, then i am your man. i want to be. now, i doubt anybody here makes more than $330,000 a year. i won't ask you, but if you do, you're in the top 1%. >> it would be a violation of the rules. they couldn't -- >> i'm not going to ask them. but if everyone here in this audience was dead on in the middle of the middle-class, then the tax cuts for every single one of you all added up would be less than the tax cut his plan would give to just one member of that top wealthiest 1%. now you judge for yourselves whether or not that's fair. >> quick, and then we're moving on. >> good. 50 million americans get no tax relief under his plan. >> that's not right. >> you may not be one of them, you're just not one of the right people. and secondly, we've had enough fighting. it's time to unite. you talk about eight years? in eight years they haven't gotten anything done on medicare, on social security, a

patient's bill of rights. it's time to get something done. >> hey, i've got to answer that, jim. >> all right. >> medicare -- i cast the tie-breaking vote to add 26 years to the life of medicare. it was due to go bankrupt in 1999 and that 50 million figure again, the newspapers -- i said -- you said forget the journalists, but they are the keepers of the score card and whether or not you're using facts that aren't right. and that fact is just not right. >> speaking of keepers of the score card, that's what i'm trying to do here mr. vice president and governor bush. we're gonna move on. we're gonna have to move on. all right, there were 12 questions on foreign and military matters, and the first one that we're going to ask will be directed to you, governor bush. and david norwood is going to ask it. mr. norwood, where are you? there you are. >> what would you make -- what would make you the best

candidate in office during the middle east crisis? >> i've been a leader. i've been a person who has to set a clear vision and convince people to follow. i've got a strategy for the middle east. and first let me say that our nation now needs to speak with one voice during this time, and i applaud the president for working hard to diffuse tensions. our nation needs to be credible and strong. when we say we're somebody's friend, everybody has got to believe it. israel is our friend and we'll stand by israel. we need to reach out to moderate arab nations as well to build coalitions to keep the peace. i also need -- the next leader needs to be patient. we can't put the middle east peace process on our timetable.

it's got to be on the timetable of the people that we're trying to bring to the peace table. we can't dictate the terms of peace, which means that you have to be steady. you can't worry about polls or focus groups. you've got to have a clear vision. that's what a leader does. a leader also understands that the united states must be strong to keep the peace. saddam hussein still is a threat in the middle east. our coalition against saddam is unraveling. sanctions are loosened. the man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don't know because inspectors aren't in. so to answer your question, it requires a clear vision, a willingness to stand by our friends, and the credibility for people both friend and foe to understand when america says something, we mean it. >> vice president gore?

>> i see a future when the world is at peace, with the united states of america promoting the values of democracy and human rights and freedom all around the world. even in iran they have had an election that began to bring about some change. we stand for those values and we have to be willing to assert them. right now our military is the strongest in the entire history of the world. i will -- i pledge to you i will do whatever is necessary to make sure that it stays that way. now, what can i bring to that challenge? when i was a young man, my father was a senator opposed to the vietnam war. when i graduated from college, there were plenty of fancy ways to get out of going and being a part of that. i went and i volunteered, and i went to vietnam. i didn't do the most or run the

greatest risk by a long shot, but i learned what it was like to be an enlisted man in the united states army. in the congress, in the house of representatives, i served on the house intelligence committee and i worked hard to learn the subject of nuclear arms control and how we can diffuse these tensions and deal with non-proliferation and deal with the problems of terrorism and these new weapons of mass destruction. look, we're gonna face some serious new challenges in the next four years. i've worked on that long and hard. when i went to the united states senate, i asked for an assignment to the armed services committee. and while i was there i worked on a bipartisan basis, as i did in the house, i worked with former president reagan on the modernization of our strategic weaponry. in the senate i was one of only ten democrats, along with senator joe lieberman, to support governor bush's dad in the persian gulf war resolution. and for the last eight years i've served on the national security council. can i say just one other thing here? >> no, sir. we'll get that -- i'm gonna -- the next question is to you. >> fine, i'll wait. >> it's a related -- it's a

related question that is going to be asked by kenneth allen. mr. allen? >> i think he gets a -- oh, i'm sorry, you're right, go ahead. >> mr. allen, right there. >> mr. vice president, today our military forces are stretched thinner and doing more than they have ever done before during peacetime. i would like to know what you are -- i think we would all like to know what you as president would do to ensure proper resourcing for the current mission and/or more selectively choosing the time and place that our forces will be used around the world. >> thank you, sir. just to finish briefly, i started to say that for the last eight years i've been on the national security council. last week i broke up -- i suspended campaigning for two days, or parts of two days, to go back and participate in the meetings that charted the president's summit meeting that he just returned from earlier today.

and our team of -- our country's team over there did a great job. it's a difficult situation. the united states has to be strong in order to make sure that we can help promote peace and security and stability. and that means keeping our military strong. now, i said earlier that we are the strongest military, but we need to continue improving readiness and making sure that our military personnel are adequately paid and that the combination of their pay and their benefits and their retirement as veterans is comparable to the stiff competition that's coming in this strong economy from the private sector. and i have supported the largest pay raise in many a year, and i support another one now. i also support modernization of our strategic and tactical weaponry. the governor has proposed skipping a generation of technology. i think that would be a mistake, because i think one of the ways we've been able to be so successful in kosovo and bosnia

and haiti and in other places is by having the technological edge. you know, we won that conflict in kosovo without losing a single human life in combat, a single american life in combat. now, readiness. the trends before we -- before i got my current job were on the decline, the number of divisions were reduced. i argued that we should reverse that trend and take it back up. and i'm happy to tell you that we have. now, in my budget for the next ten years i propose $100 billion for this purpose. the governor proposes $45 billion. i propose more than twice as much because i think it's needed. >> governor bush, two minutes. >> if this were a spending contest, i would come in second. i readily admit i'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is. your question was deployment. it must be in the national interests, must be in our vital

interests whether we ever send troops. the mission must be clear. soldiers must understand why we're going. the force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. and the exit strategy needs to be well-defined. i'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world. see, i think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy. should i be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the united states military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war. and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. there may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often. the vice president mentioned my view of long-term for the military. i want to make sure the equipment for our military is the best it can possibly be, of course. but we have an opportunity -- we have an opportunity to use our

research and development capacities, the great technology of the united states, to make our military lighter, harder to find, more lethal. we have an opportunity, really, if you think about it, if we're smart and have got a strategic vision and a leader who understands strategic planning, to make sure that we change the terms of the battlefield of the future so we can keep the peace. this is a peaceful nation, and i intend to keep the peace. spending money is one thing. but spending money without a strategic plan can oftentimes be wasted. first thing i'm going to do is ask the secretary of defense to develop a plan so we are making sure we're not spending our money on political projects, but on projects to make sure our soldiers are well-paid, well-housed, and have the best equipment in the world. >> governor bush, another kind of gun question. it will be asked by robert lutz. mr. lutz? >> governor bush --

>> yes, sir. >> would just like to know what is your opposition to the brady handgun bill? >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear that. >> would like to know why you object to the brady handgun bill, if you do object to it. because in a recent tv ad it showed that the national rifle association says that if you are elected, that they will be working out of your office. >> i don't think the national rifle association ran that ad. but let me just tell you my position on guns in general, sir, if you don't mind. >> excuse me, i'm not sure he's finished with his question. >> i'm sorry. >> that kind of bothers me when i see an ad like that. i want you to explain that ad to me. >> well, i don't think i ran the ad. i think somebody who doesn't want me to be president might have run that ad. that wasn't my ad. i think it might have been one of my opponent's ads. here is what i believe, sir. i believe law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect themselves and their families. i believe that we ought to keep guns out of the hands of people

that shouldn't have them. that's why i'm for instant background checks at gun shows, i'm for trigger locks, i think that makes sense. matter of fact, we distributed free trigger locks in the state of texas so that people can get them and put them on their guns to make their guns more safe. i think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun. but i also believe strongly that we need to enforce laws on the books that the best way to make sure that we keep our society safe and secure is to hold people accountable for breaking the law. if we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. if we keep somebody -- you know, illegally using a gun, there needs to be a consequence. enforcement of law, and the federal government can help. there is a great program called project exile in richmond, virginia, where we focused federal taxpayers' money and federal prosecutors and went after people who were illegally using guns. to me that's how you make society the safest it can be. and so, yeah, sometimes i agree

with some of these groups in washington and sometimes i don't. i'm a pretty independent thinker. the one thing i'm for is a safe society. and i'm for enforcing laws on the books. and that's what is going to happen should i earn your confidence. >> vice president gore? >> well, it was not one of my ads, either, governor. but i am familiar with the statement, and it was made by one of the top-ranking officials of that organization. let me tell you my position. i think that some common sense gun safety measures are certainly needed with the flood of cheap handguns that have sometimes been working their way into the hands of the wrong people. but all of my proposals are focused on that problem, gun safety. none of my proposals would have any effect on hunters, or sportsmen, or people who use rifles. they're aimed at the real problem. let's make our schools safe, let's make our neighborhoods

safe. let's have a three-day waiting period, cooling off, so we can have a background check to make sure that criminals and people who really shouldn't have guns don't get them. but i would like to use my remaining time on this exchange, jim, to respond to an exchange that took place just a moment ago. because a couple of times the governor has said that i am for a bigger government. governor, i'm not. and let me tell you what the record shows. for the last eight years i have had the challenge of running the streamlining program called reinventing government. and if there are any federal employees in this group, you know what that means. the federal government has been reduced in size by more than 300,000 people. and it's now the smallest number that we have had since the -- the smallest in size since john kennedy's administration. during the last five years, texas's government has gone up in size.

federal government has gone down, texas's government has gone up. now, my plan for the future, i see a time when we have smaller, smarter government where you don't have to wait in line because you can get services online cheaper, better, faster. we can do that. >> steve luecker has a question, and it is for vice president gore. mr. luecker? there you are. >> vice president gore. the family farms are disappearing and having a hard time even in the current positive economic environment. what steps would you or your administration take on agricultural policy developments to protect the family farms for this multi-functional service they perform? >> we've got a bumper crop this year. but that's the good news. you know what the bad news is that follows on that. the prices are low.

in the last several years, the so-called freedom to farm law has, in my view, been mostly a failure. i want to change many of its provisions. now, many here who are not involved in farming don't -- won't follow this, so just forgive me. because the 2% of the country that is involved in farming is important because the rest of us wouldn't eat except for them. and you guys have been having a hard time, and i want to fight for you. i want to change those provisions. i want to restore a meaningful safety net. and i think that you pointed the way in your comments, because when you say there are multiple things accomplished by farmers, you're specifically including conservation and protection of the environment. and yes, farmers are the first environmentalists. and when they decide not to plow a field that is vulnerable to soil erosion, that may cost them a little money, but it helps the environment. i think that we ought to have an

expanded conservation reserve program. and i think that the environmental benefits that come from sound management of the land ought to represent a new way for farmers to get some income that will enable them -- enable you to make sensible choices in crop rotation, and when you leave the land fallow and the rest. now, i'll go beyond that and say i think we need much more focus on rural economic development programs. i see a time when the internet-based activities are more available in the rural areas and where the extra source of income that farm families used to have from shoe factories is replaced by an extra source of income from working in the information economy. so we need to do a lot of things, but we ought to start with a better safety net. >> governor bush, two minutes. >> i would like our farmers feeding the world. we're the best producers in the world, and i want -- i want the

farmers feeding the world. we need to open up markets. exports are down, and every time an export number goes down, it hurts the farmer. i want the next president to have fast track negotiating authority to open up markets around the world. weâre the best and the most efficient farmers. i don't want to use food as a diplomatic weapon from this point forward. we shouldn't be using food. it hurts the farmers. it's not the right thing to do. i'm for value-added processing. we need more work on value-added processing. you take the raw product you produce, i presume you're a farmer, off your farm, and you convert it. value-added processing is important. i'm for research and development. spending research and development money so that we can use our technological base to figure out new uses for farm products. i'm for getting rid of the death tax, completely getting rid of the death tax. one reason family farmers are forced to sell early is because

of the death tax. this is a bad tax. the president shouldn't have vetoed that bill. it's a tax that taxes people twice. it penalizes the family farmer. so should i be fortunate enough to earn your vote, i also understand -- i want to open up markets, but i also understand that farming is a part of our national security. i'm from a big farm state. we're the second biggest state -- farming state in the country. and i hear from my farmers and friends all the time. the vice president is right, by the way. every day is earth day if you own the land. i like the policies that will encourage farmers to put -- set aside land as well for conservation purposes. thank you. >> a quick thing on the inheritance tax. there is a difference between the two of you on this. vice president gore? >> yeah. i'm for a massive reform of the estate tax or the death tax. and under the plan that i've proposed, 80% of all family farms will be completely exempt

from the estate tax. and the vast majority of all family businesses would be completely exempt, and all of the others would have sharply reduced. so 80% -- now the problem with completely eliminating it goes back to the wealthiest 1%. the amount of money that has to be raised in taxes for middle-class families to make up for completely eliminating that on the very wealthiest, the billionaires, that would be an extra heavy burden on middle-class families. and so let's do it for most all, but not completely eliminate it for the very top. >> what's the case for doing that, governor? >> eliminating the death tax. >> completely. for everybody. >> because people shouldn't be taxed twice on their assets. it's either unfair for some or unfair for all. again, this is just a difference of opinion. if you're from washington, you want to pick and choose winners. i don't think that's the role of the president. i think if you're going to have tax relief, everybody benefits.

secondly, i think your plan -- a lot of fine print in your plan, mr. vice president, with all due respect. it is -- i'm not so sure 80% of the people get the death tax. i know this, 100% will get it if i'm the president. i just don't think it's fair to tax people's assets twice regardless of your status. it's a fairness issue. it's an issue of principle, not politics. >> new issue. new issue. and the question will be asked by joyce cleamer of governor bush. joyce cleamer? there you are. >> hi, joyce. >> hi, governor. i'm very concerned about the morality of our country now. tv, movies, the music that our children are, you know, barraged with every day. and i want to know if there's anything that can be worked out with the -- hollywood, or whoever, to help get rid of some of this bad language and

whatever, you know. it's just bringing the country down. and our children are very important to us and we're concerned about their education at school. we should be concerned about their education at home, also. thank you. >> appreciate that question. laura and i are proud parents of teenage girls, twin daughters, and i know what you're saying. government ought to stand on the side of parents. parents are teaching their children right from wrong, and the message oftentimes gets undermined by the popular culture. you bet there's things that government can do. we can work with the entertainment industry to provide family hour. we can have filters on internets where public money is spent. there ought to be filters in public libraries and filters in public schools so if kids get on the internet, there is not going to be pornography or violence coming in.

i think we ought to have character education in our schools. i know that doesn't directly talk about hollywood, but it does reinforce the values you're teaching. greatly expand character education funding so that public schools will teach children values, values which have stood the test of time. there's afterschool money available. i think that afterschool money ought to be available for faith-based programs and charitable programs that exist because somebody has heard the call to love a neighbor like you would like to be loved yourself. that will help reinforce the values that parents teach at home as well. ours is a great land, and one of the reasons why is because we're free. and so i don't support censorship. but i do believe that we ought to talk plainly to the hollywood moguls and people who produce this stuff and explain the consequences. i think we need to have rating

systems that are clear. i happen to like the idea of having technology for the tv, easy for parents to use so you can tune out these programs you don't want in your house. i'll remind mothers and dads the best weapon is the off/on button, and paying attention to your children, and eating dinner with them and being -- i'm sorry. i was on my peroration. >> my turn. >> vice president gore. >> i care a lot about this. it's not just movies; television, video games, music, the internet. parents now feel like you have to compete with the mass culture in order to raise your kids with the values that you want them to have. tipper and i have four children. and god bless them, every one of them decided on their own to come here this evening. i don't want to embarrass our oldest daughter.

she and her husband made us grandparents almost a year-and-a-half ago, and yet if she'll forgive me, when she was little, she brought a record home that had some awful lyrics in it and tipper hit the ceiling. and that launched a campaign to try to get the record companies to put ratings that -- warning labels for parents. and i'm so proud of what she accomplished in getting them on there. i've been involved myself in negotiating and helping to move along the negotiations with the internet service providers to get a parents' protection page every time 95% of the pages come up. and a feature that allows parents to automatically check with one click what sites your kids have visited lately. you know, some parents are worried about those filters, that you will have to ask your kids how to put them on there. but if you can check up on them, that's real power.

and recently the federal trade commission pointed out that some of these entertainment companies have warned parents that the material is inappropriate for children, and then they've turned around behind the backs that same adult te directly to children. that is an outrage. joe lieberman and i gave them six months to clean up their act. and if they don't do it, we're gonna ask for tougher authority in the hands of the ftc on the false and deceptive advertising. i'll tell you this, i want to do something about this. respect the first amendment, but i will do something to help you raise your kids without that garbage. >> all right. vice president gore, the next question is for you, and it will be asked by steven koosmann. mr. koosmann, where are you, sir? you're right behind me as well. there we go. >> right next to the last. >> it seems that when we hear about issues of this campaign, it's usually medicare, social security or prescription drugs. as a college professor, i hear a

lot of apathy amongst young people who feel that there are no issues directed to them. and they don't plan to vote. how do you address that? >> we've got to change it. i spend a good deal of time talking to young people, and in my standard speech out there on the stump i usually end my speech by saying, i want to ask you for something and i want to direct it especially to the young people in the audience. and i want to tell you what i tell them. sometimes people who are very idealistic and have great dreams, as young people do, are apt to stay at arm's length from the political process because they think their good hearts might be brittle, and if they invest their hopes and allow themselves to believe, then they're gonna be let down and disappointed. but thank goodness we've always had enough people who have been willing in every generation to push past the fear of a broken

heart and become deeply involved in forming a more perfect union. we're america, and we believe in our future and we know we have the ability to shape our future. now, we've got to address one of the biggest threats to our democracy. and that is the current campaign financing system. and i know they say it doesn't rank anywhere on the polls. i don't believe that's a fair measure. i'm telling you, i will make it the -- i will make the mccain-feingold campaign finance reform bill the very first measure that i send to the congress as president. governor bush opposes it. i wish that he would consider changing his mind on that. because i think that the special interests have too much power, and we need to give our democracy back to the american people. let me tell you why. those issues you mentioned, social security, prescription drugs, the big drug companies are against the prescription drug proposal that i've made.

the hmos are against the patient's rights bill, the dingle-norwood bill that i support, and that gov. bush does not support. the big oil companies are against the measures to get more energy independence and renewable fuel. they ought to have their voices heard, but they shouldn't have a big megaphone that drowns out the american people. we need campaign finance reform and we need to shoot straight with young and old alike and tell them what the real choices are. and we can renew and rekindle the american spirit and make our future what our founders dreamed it could be. we can. >> governor bush, two minutes. >> tell you what i hear. a lot of people are sick and tired of the bitterness in washington, d.c. and therefore they don't want any part of politics. they look at washington and see people pointing fingers and casting blame and saying one thing and doing another. there's a lot of young folks

saying, you know, why do i want to be involved with this mess? and what i think needs to happen in order to encourage the young to become involved is to shoot straight, is to set aside the partisan differences, and set an agenda that will make sense. medicare, i know you talked about it, but medicare is relevant for all of us, young and old alike. we better get it right now. tax reform is relevant for old and young alike. i don't think it's the issues that turn kids off. i think it's the tone. i think it's the attitude. i think it's a cynicism in washington and it doesn't have to be that way. before i decided to run, i had to resolve two issues in my mind. one, could our family endure all this business. and i came to the conclusion that our love was strong enough to be able to do it. the other was could an administration change the tone in washington, d.c. and i believe the answer is yes, otherwise i wouldn't be asking for your vote. that's what happened in

texas. we worked together. there is a man here in this audience named hugo berlanga. he is the chairman of the health committee. he came here for a reason, to tout our record on health in texas. he's a democrat. i didn't care whether he was a republican or democrat. what i cared about is could we work together. that's what washington, d.c. needs. and finally, sir, to answer your question, you need somebody in office who will tell the truth. that's the best way to get people back in the system. >> governor bush, norma curby has the next question. and it's for you. norma curby, where are you? >> hi, norma. >> hi. how will your administration address diversity, inclusiveness, and what role will affirmative action play in your overall plan? >> i've had a record of bringing people from all walks of life into my administration, and my administration is better off for it in texas. i'm going to find people that

want to serve their country. but i want a diverse administration, i think it's important. i've worked hard in the state of texas to make sure our institutions reflect the state with good, smart policy. policy that rejects quotas. i don't like quotas. quotas tend to pit one group of people against another. quotas are bad for america. it's not the way america is all about. but policies that give people a helping hand so they can help themselves. for example, in our state of texas i worked with the legislature, both republicans and democrats, to pass a law that said if you come in the top 10% of your high school class, you're automatically admitted to one of our higher institutions of learning, college. and as a result, our universities are now more diverse. it was a smart thing to do. what i called it, i labeled it

affirmative access. i think the contracting business in government can help. not with quotas, but help meet a goal of ownership of small businesses, for example. the contracts need to be smaller, the agencies need to be -- need to recruit and to work hard to find people to bid on the state contracts. i think we can do that in a way that represents what america is all about, which is equal opportunity and an opportunity for people to realize their potential. so to answer your question, i support, i guess the way to put it, is affirmative access. i'll have an administration that will make you proud. thank you. >> vice president gore? >> i believe in this goal and effort with all my heart. i believe that our future as a nation depends upon whether or not we can break down these barriers that have been used to

pit group against group, and bring our people together. how do you do it? well, you establish respect for differences. you don't ignore differences. it's all too easy for somebody in the majority in the population to say oh, we're just all the same, without an understanding of the different life experience that you've had, that others have had. once you have that understanding and mutual respect, then we can transcend the differences and embrace the highest common denominator of the american spirit. i don't know what affirmative access means. i do know what affirmative action means. i know the governor is against it, and i know that i'm for it. i know what a hate crime statute pending at the national level is all about in the aftermath of james byrd's death. i'm for that proposed law, the governor is against it. i know what it means to have a commitment to diversity. i am part of an administration that has the finest record on diversity. and incidentally, an excellent -- i mean, i think our success over the last eight years has not been in spite of diversity

but because of it. because we're able to draw on the wisdom and experience from different parts of the society that hadn't been tapped in the same way before. and incidentally, mel carnahan in missouri had the finest record on diversity in any governor in the entire history of the state of missouri. and i want to honor that among his other achievements here. now, i just believe that what we have to do is enforce the civil rights laws. i'm against quotas. this is, with all due respect, governor, that's a red herring. affirmative action isn't quotas. i'm against quotas, they're illegal. they're against the american way. affirmative action means that you take extra steps to acknowledge the history of discrimination and injustice and prejudice and bring all people into the american dream because it helps everybody, not just those who are directly benefitting. >> governor, what is your -- are you opposed to affirmative action? >> if affirmative action means quotas, i'm against it.

if affirmative action means what i just described what i'm for, then i'm for it. you heard what i was for. the vice president keeps saying i'm against things. you heard what i was for, and that's what i support. >> what about -- mr. vice president, you heard what he said. >> he said if affirmative action means quotas, he's against it. affirmative action doesn't mean quotas. are you for it without quotas? >> i may not be for your version, mr. vice president, but i'm for what i just described to the lady. >> are you for what the supreme court says is a constitutional way of having affirmative action? >> let's go on to another -- >> i think that speaks for itself. >> no, it doesn't speak for itself, mr. vice president, it speaks for the fact that there are certain rules in this that we all agree to, but evidently rules don't mean anything. >> the question is for you, vice president gore, and lisa kee will ask it. lisa kee, where are you? there we go, sorry. >> how will your tax proposals

affect me as a middle-class, 34-year-old single person with no dependents? >> if you make less than $60,000 a year and you decide to invest $1,000 in a savings account, you'll get a tax credit, which means in essence that the federal government will match your $1,000 with another $1,000. if you make less than $30,000 a year and you put $500 in a savings account, the federal government will match it with $1500. if you make more than $60,000 and up to 100 you'll still get a match, but not as generous. you'll get an access to life-long learning and education, help with tuition if you want to get a new skill or training. if you want to purchase health insurance, you will get help with that. if you want to participate in some of the dynamic changes that are going on in our country, you will get specific help in doing

that. if you are part of the -- of the bottom 20% or so of wage earners, then you will get an expanded earned income tax credit. now, the tax relief that i propose is directed specifically at middle-income individuals and families. and if you have a -- if you have an elderly parent or grandparent who needs long-term care, then you will get help with that. $3,000 tax credit to help your expenses in taking care of a loved one who needs long-term care. >> governor bush? >> let me just say the first -- this business about the entitlement he tried to describe about savings, you know, matching savings here and matching savings there, fully-funded it's gonna cost a whole lot of money, a lot more than we have. you're going to get a tax relief in my plan.

you're not going to be targeted in or targeted out. everybody that pays taxes is going to get tax relief. if you take care of an elderly in your home, you're going to get the personal exemption increased. i think also what you need to think about is not the immediate, but what about medicare? you get a plan that will include prescription drugs, a plan that will give you options. now, i hope people understand that medicare today is important, but it doesn't keep up with the new medicines. if you're a medicare person, on medicare, you don't get the new procedures. you're stuck in a time warp in many ways. so it will be a modern medicare system that trusts you to make a variety of options for you. you're going to live in a peaceful world. it will be a world of peace because we're going to have a clear sight of foreign policy based upon a strong military and a mission that stands by our friends. a mission that doesn't try to be

all things to all people. a judicious use of the military which will help keep the peace. you'll live in a world, hopefully, that is more educated so it's less likely you'll be harmed in your neighborhood. see, an educated child is one much more likely to be hopeful and optimistic. you'll be in a world in which fits into my philosophy. the harder you work, the more you can keep. it's the american way. government shouldn't be a heavy hand. it's what the federal government does to you. it should be a helping hand, and tax relief and the proposals i just described should be a good helping hand. >> governor, next question is for you, and leo anderson will ask it. mr. anderson. you want a mike? >> in one of the last debates held, the subject of capital punishment came up, and in your response to the question, you seemed overly joyed and as a

matter of fact proud that texas led the nation in the execution of prisoners. sir, did i misread your response and are you really, really proud of the fact that texas is number one in executions? >> no, i'm not proud of that. the death penalty is a very serious business, leo. it's an issue that good people obviously disagree on. i take my job seriously. and if you think i was proud of it, i think you misread me, i do. i was sworn to uphold the laws of my state. during the course of the campaign in 1994 i was asked do you support the death penalty. i said i did if administered fairly and justly. because i believe it saves lives, leo, i do. if it's administered swiftly, justly and fairly, it saves lives. one of the things that happens when you're a governor, at least oftentimes you have to make tough decisions.

you can't let public persuasion sway you, because the job is to enforce the law. and that's what i did, sir. there have been some tough cases come across my desk. some of the hardest moments since i've been the governor of the state of texas is to deal with those cases. but my job is to ask two questions, sir. is the person guilty of the crime? and did the person have full access to the courts of law? and i can tell you looking at you right now, in all cases those answers were affirmative. i'm not proud of any record. i'm proud of the fact that violent crime is down in the state of texas. i'm proud of the fact that we hold people accountable. but i'm not proud of any record, sir, i'm not. >> vice president gore? >> i support the death penalty. i think that it has to be

administered not only fairly with attention to things le dna evidence, which i think should be used in all capital cases, but also with very careful attention. if, for example, somebody confesses to the crime and somebody is waiting on death row, there has to be alertness to say wait a minute, have we got the wrong guy? if the wrong guy is put to death, then that's a double tragedy. not only has an innocent person been executed, but the real perpetrator of the crime has not been helaccountable for it. and in some cases may be still at large. but i support the death penay in the most heinous cases. >> do both of you believe the death penalty actually deters crime? governor? >> i do. it's the only reason to be for it. t me finish, sir. i don't think you ould spo the death penalty to seek revenge. don'think that'sight i think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives.

>> i think it is a deterrent. i know that's a controversial view, but i do believe it's a deterrent. >> next question is for you, vice president gore, and thomas fischer will ask it. mr. fischer? >> yes. my 6th grade class at st. claire's school wanted to ask of all these promises you guys are making and all the pledges, will you keep them when you're in office? >> yes. i am a person who keeps promises. and, you know, we've heard a lot about -- from the governor about not much being done in the last eight years, as if the promises that i made eight years ago have not been kept. i think the record shows otherwise. we have gone from the biggest deficits eight years ago to the biggest surpluses in history

today. instead of high unemployment, we now have the lowest african-american unemployment, the lowest latino unemployment ever measured. 22 million new jobs, very low unemployment nationally. instead of ballooning the debt and multiplying it four times over, we have seen the debt actually begun to be paid down. here are some promises that i'll make to you now. i will balance the budget every year. i will pay down the debt every year. i will give middle-class americans tax cuts, meaningful ones. and i will invest in education, health care, protecting the environment and retirement security. we both made promises in this campaign. i promise you i will keep mine.

group against group and bring our people together. how dow do it? you establish respect for differences. it's all too easy for somebody in the majority to say we're all the same without an understanding of the different life experience that you've had that others have h. once you have that understanding and mutual respect then we can transcend the differences of the american spirit. i don't know what affirmative access means. i know the governor is against it, i know i'm for it. i know what a hate crime is in the after math of james bird's death. i'm for that proposed law, the governor is against it. i know whate means to have a commitment to diversity. i am part of an administration

that has the finest record on diversity and incidently an excellent -- i think our success has not been in spite of diversity but because of of it. because we're able to draw on the wisdom and experience of different parts of society. and indently missouri had the finest record on diversity of any governor in the state of missouri and i want to honor that here. i believe that what we have to do is enforce the civil rights laws. i'm against quotas. that is a red her ring. affirmative action isn't quotas. their illegal. their against the american way. affirmative action means you take steps to acknowledge discrimination and prejudice and justice and bring all people into the american dream because

it helps everybody, not just those who are directly benefiting. >> governor, are you opposed to affirmative action. >> if it is quotas, i'm against it. you heard what i was for. and that's whey support. >> what about mr. vice president, you heard what he said. >> he said if it's quotas he's against it. are you with for it without queattass? >> i may not be for your version of it but i'm for what i just described to the lady. >> let's go on to another -- >> it speaks for the fact that there are certain rules in this we all agree to but evidencely rules don't mean anything. >> the question is for you vice

president gore and lisa key will ask it. >> where are you? >> how will your tax proposals affect me as a middle class 34-year-old single person with no didn't nts? >> if you make less than $60,000 a year and you decide to invest $1 thurks 234 a savings account the federal government will match that. few make less than $30,000 a year the federal government will match it with $1500. few make 60,000 up to 100 the government will match but not as generous. you will get help with tuition if you want to get a new skill or training. if you want to purchase health

insurance you will get help with that. if you want to participate in some of the dynamic change that is are going on in our country, you will get specific help in doing that. if you are part of the bottom 20% or so of wage earners, then you will get an expanded earned income tax credit. now the tax relief that i propose is directed specifically at middle income individuals and families. and if you have an elderly parent or grandparent who needs long-term care, then you will get help with that, $3,000 tax credit to help your expenses in taking care of a loved one who needs long-term care. >> governor bush. >> let me say this biz he

described about savings, matching savings here and there fully fund sd going to cost a whole lot of money, a lot more than we v. you're going to get tax relief under my plan. everybody who pays taxes is going to get relief. if you take care of an elderly in your home you're going to get relief. what about medicare, you get a plan that will include prescription drugs. a plan that will give you options. i hope people understand that medicare today is important but it doesn't keep up with the new medicines. if you're a medicare person on medicare, you don't get the new procedures. you're stuck in a time warp in many ways. so it will be a modern system that trusts you to make a variety of options for you. you're going to live in a

peaceful world because we're going to have a clear sight of foreign policy based on a strong military and a mission that stands by our friends, a mission that doesn't try to be all things to all people. a judishes military which will help keep the peace. you will be in a world more educated so it's less likely you'll be harmed in your neighborhood. an educated child is more hopeful and optimistic. you'll be in a world the harder you work the more you can keep. it's the american way. government shouldn't be a heavy hand, it should be a helping hand. and tax relief and the proposals i just described should be a good helping hand. >> governor the next question is for you. >> in one of the last debates

held the subject of capital punishment came up and in your response to the question, you seemed overly joyed, as a matter of fact proud that texas led the nation in execution of prisoners. i did misreed your response and are you proud of the fact that texas is number one in expect cushions? >> no, i'm not proud of that. that is very serious business. it's an issue that good people obviously disdisagree on. i take my job seriously. and if you think i was proud of it, i think you misread me. i do. i was sworn to up hold the laws of my state. i was asked do i support the death penty and i said i did because i believe it saves lifes. i think if it'sstered swiftly,

justly and fairly it saves lives. one of the things that happens as a governor you have to make tough decisions and you can't let public persuasion sway you because the job is to enforce the law. and that's what i did, sir. there have been some tough cases come across my desk and some of the hardest moments since i've been the governor of the state of texas has been to deal with those questions. but my job is to deal with the person of the crime and did the person have full access to the courts of the law. and i can tell you looking at you in all cases those answers were affirmative. i'm not proud of any record. i'm proud violent crime is down in the state of texas. i'm proud that we hold people accountable.

but i'm not proud of any record sir. >> i support the death penalty. i think it has to bestered not only fairly with attention to things like d.n.a. evidence which i think should be used in all capital cases but also with very careful attention. if for example, somebody confesses to the crime and somebody is waiting on death row, there has to be alertness to say wait a minute, have we got the wrong guy. if the wrong guy is put to death, that's a double tragedy not only has an innocent person been executed but the real perpetrator of the crime may still be at large. but i support the death penalty in the most heinous cases. >> do both of you>> do both of e

death penalty as a deterrent? >> i do not think you should seek it for revenge. >> i do not believe in it as a commercial thing, but i do believe it is a deterrent. >> my sixth grade class wanted to ask if all of these promises that you are making, would you keep them at when you are in office? >> yes. [laughter] i am a person who keeps promises. we have heard a lot from the governor about not much been done in the last eight years. the promises i made eight years

ago have not been kept. we now have the lowest unemployment ever measured. at 22 million jobs and very low unemployment nationally. instead of ballooning the debt and multiplying it four times over, we have seen the debt actually become paid down. here are promises of will make to you now. i will balance the budget every year. i will pay down the debt every year. i will give middle-class americans tax cuts, meaningful ones. and i will invest in education, health care, protecting the environment, and retirement

security. we both made promises in this campaign. i promise you i will keep mine. let me tell you about the governor. he has promised $1 trillion out of the social security trust fund for young working adults to save on their own. but he has promised the seniors that their benefits have not been cut and he has promised the same $1 trillion to them. this is the show me state. it reminds me of the line from the movie, "show me the money." which one of those promises will you keep and which will you break, governor? >> governor abortion? >> thank you for your question. [laughter] there is an old high school debating trek, which is to enter jumping in an attack your opponent in the end. you asked about promises. you have promised that medicare

would be reformed and that social security would be reformed. you promised a middle-class tax cut in 1992. it did not happen. there's too much bitterness in washington. there is too much wrangling. it is time to have a fresh start. one of the reasons i was successful as the governor of texas as i did not try to be all things to all people when i campaigned in a race, a lot of people did not think i could win. including, by the way, my mother. [laughter] icet i would do tort reform, education reform, welfare reform, and juvenile justice reform. and i want and i have the will of the people in my state behind me. and that i brought the folks together to get it done. that is what this election is all about. i'm sure your sixth grade kids are saying these guys won't do anything to get elected. but there is a record by half --

these guys will do anything to get elected. but there is a record i have. i will take a $2.40 trillion surplus. and remember, medicare expenses are secure up to 2015. people will get paid. but if you are younger, you better hope this country thinks differently, otherwise, you will be faced with huge payroll taxes and a difference in benefits, and you bet we will take a trillion dollars of your own money and let you invest it under state guidelines to get a better return on the money than the paltry 2% that the government gets a day. that is one of my promises. but we have to bring the democrats and republicans together to get it done. that is what it requires. there was a chance to get this done. there was a bipartisan approach. it has been rejected. >> to both of you on this subject, there are other questions that go to this, skepticism not necessarily about you, but all people in politics.

why is that? >> first, i would like to respond to what the governor just said. because the trillion dollars that has been promised to young people has been promised to older people, and you cannot make both promises. under my plan, its solvency will be extended until you are 100. the governor may not want to answer that question and he may want to call a high school debating trick, but let me tell you, this election is not about debating drakes. it is about your future. the reason he says social security gets two%, you know, it is not a bank account. it is also used to give your mothers and fathers social

security checks that they live on. if you take a trillion dollars out of that social security trust fund, how will the checks be -- how would you keep it safe for seniors? >> we have to go to closing statements. >> can i answer that? one reason people are skeptical is because people do not answer the questions they have been asked. [laughter] the trillion dollars comes out of a surplus of that you can invest your own money. who you trust, government or people? >> and now we will go to closing statements. vice-president gore. >> i will begin by answering your last question. i believe people are skeptical about people in politics today because we have seen a time of great challenge for our country, since the assassination of our best leaders in the 1960's since watergate and because we need campaign finance reform.

i would like to tell you something about me. i keep my word. i have kept the faith. i have kept the faith with my country. i volunteered for the army. i served in vietnam. i kept the faith with my family. my wife and i have been married for 30 years. we have devoted ourselves to our gillibrand and now our grandson. i have kept the faith with our country. nine times i have raised my hand to take an oath to the constitution and i have never violated that both. i have not spent the last quarter century in pursuit of personal wealth. i have spent the last quarter century of fighting for middle- class working men and women in the united states of america. i believe deeply that you have to be willing to stand up and fight, no matter what powerful

forces might be on the other side. and if you want somebody that is willing to fight for you, i am asking for your support and your vote, and yes, your confidence and willingness to believe that we can do the right thing. and be the better for it. we have made some progress in the last eight years. and we have seen the strongest economy in the u.s. lord crime rates for eight years in a row. the highest private home ownership ever. but i will make you one, -- one promise here now, you ain't seen nothing yet. i will keep that promise. >> governor bush? >> i want to thanks -- i want to thank the folks here and to those at george washington diversity. i think after three debates, the people of this country understand there's a difference between big federal government and somebody that is coming from outside washington who will

trust individuals. i have an agenda that i want to get done for the country, and agenda that says it will reform medicare to make sure seniors have prescription drugs, and to give seniors a different options from which they can choose. we will listen to the young voices in social security and think differently about the system, but also to fill the promise to the seniors. and in america, a promise made will be a promise kept, should i be fortunate enough to become your president. i want to build an american -- military to keep the peace. i want to make sure that we build up the education system in america so that not one child is left behind. and after setting priorities, i want to give some of your money back. i do not think the surplus is the government's money. is the people's money. i do not think the surplus exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the federal government, but because of the ingenuity and hard work of the american people. and you ought to have some of

the surplus so that you can save and dream and build. i look forward to the final weeks of this campaign. i am asking for your vote. as for those of you for me, thanks for your help. for those of you for my opponent, please only vote once. [laughter] but for those who have not made up their mind, i would like to conclude with this promise that should i become president, i will swear to uphold model of the law of the land, but the honor and dignity of the office to which i have been elected, so help me god. thank you very much. >> a closing piece of business before we go. the debate commission wants reaction to the different types of debates we use this year. you may register an opinion at their website. thank you and good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> and we are live once again in the spin alley, set up inside hofstra university in hempstead, new york. this is the side of tomorrow night's the second debate. we will have coverage of when it ends and about 10:30 p.m. we will turn on our cameras inside this room. we will also meet with media representatives at the conclusion of the debate. those spokesman will also do a little campaigning themselves,

giving their take on how the candidates faired.

>> we have learned that the president is in rehearsals at a resort in williamsburg today. mitt romney is at his home in boston where he is rehearsing. and this will be a town hall style the way of questions posed a from the audience in nassau county, new york. we will have leverage -- live coverage starting 7:00 p.m. eastern with a debate preview and the debate itself begins at 9:00 p.m. and then we will get your of your reaction. also tonight, will show you the first debate between the president and mitt romney from the university of denver. and it will have that as part of our lineup at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. take a look at video of the vice-presidential debate as well as the presidential debate from earlier this month. seavey individual questions. tuesday at this website, you can

see coverage from inside the spin room. watch the tweet and add your own. >> i watched c-span because when i want to get the news without a lot of talking and pundits adding their point of view, i can get the original scrips from a person and then come to my own conclusion, which i think is better than having someone else tell me what i should think. c-span, c-span2 and c-span 3 -- two is history, which are loved. 3 is a civil war history. >> sandra watches c-span on verizon. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought

to you as a public service by your television provider. >> pro-public opinion recently -- pro publica recently held an event. this discussion took place at the lower east side tenement museum in new york city. >> thanks, mike. i love the title. it seems there should be a batman character involved. but instead, just a a lot of people with a lot of money. i would like to introduce our panel. immediately to my left, melody slone. but she is a nationally recognized expert on congressional expert -- ethics

and prior to her current position, she served as the district attorney -- a system does attorney in the district of columbia in the 1990's. next juror we have nicki columbia from the "new york times" and he is also the recipient of a pulitzer prize in 2009. to his left wing of tim gardner of pro-publica, covering on campaign finance. next to him, we have broadly chairman and co-founder of the center for politics. he is one of the nation's experts on campaign finance laws and served as commissioner on the federal elections commission in 2005. welcome to all of you. let me go into a speed round.

i was thinking about how to kick off this conversation, and the reality is, a lot of people have no clue what campaign finance law is. let me start with a speed around. if you have to address a middle school civics class and tell them what they should pay attention to in finance law -- campaign finance law in this election, what would you tell them? >> i would tell them that when they see all of those commercials on their television screen that are just endless right now, that they should ignore most of them because they have no idea about the context for the ads, who is putting them out, and why, and most of the things that are set in them are not as a surly true. >> i would say, disclosure and -- not necessarily true. the cards i would say, disclosure for tax-exempt groups. >> to middle school kids in? >> yes. there are things that they have to understand it is something

very intricate to understand the american politics today. >> i would agree with both of those points. it comes back to the idea of whether we want to have anonymous money coming back into the political system and looking at old cases where you have that influence coming in and what happened. >> i would say a campaign finance reform is about how the government regulates and monsters or political speech. you as voters, or when you become voters, you will ultimately have a say, so it is important to pay attention to the candidates and the issues and what they are saying. at >> there are a few more seats up front if people are still coming in. >> the center of our panel, i would think he would both consider yourselves reporters, correct? and the edges of the panel, we have people on very different sides of the issues of campaign

finance relation. it you are the fire wall. is it fair to say that melody is an advocate of campaign finance regulation, and is it fair to say, brett, that you think overregulation is a problem? >> that is fair for me. >> yes. >> let me start with you, kim, because you have started with pro-publica. this is an interactive project involving people looking at some of the ad buys and people who flee the files. -- free the files. i know that is not directly what you are working on, but i wonder if you can tell us a little bit about the project and why you tried to reach out to the crowd to look at how money is being spent. >> this is going to be on c- span, so maybe we will get more volunteers. can everybody hear me, first of

all? friedgen files is a a way to get a look at what folks are actually spending on that tv ads in the together in the top 30 markets. we have a system now where most ads close to the election are supposed to be, and are reported to the federal election commission, but over the summer you'll get these ads that come out that are called issue ads, and these are from groups like americans for america -- you have seen them, right? and they have the ads that come out and say, so and so is a bad guy, call someone so and tell him to stop being such a bad guy. those do not have to be reported to the federal election commission. they only have to be reported to the individual tv stations. as of this summer, the sec started putting a lot of these on line, but they are very cumbersome and wieldy -- and

unwieldy. we are trying to identify how much money is being spent and the group that is spending it. this is also in large part how you can identify some of the outside groups that we are talking about that otherwise come in and go out without anybody necessarily knowing they are there. i would say it is important to identify these groups, but also not just in the presidential campaign. if everybody usually focuses in on the presidential campaign. it is almost more important in the house races down to get where you have the idea that a little bit of money can come in from this outside group right before an election, or even over the summer in the primary season in some of these areas, and completely sway the election. you have no idea who is behind these groups. >> turning to you, one of the things that you have seen is that the super pac is fairly --

the super pac money is fairly evenly matched. is that correct? >> where you are referring to is my story in today's paper noting the outside spending in september in house races. >> yes, much more specific. >> it was fairly even -- evenly matched in the camera. the significance of that is that the smaller super pac's have realized that if they come into a race with a relatively modest amount of money, talking about up to $2 million, you can affect a race at all by yourself. if you get into it in september, instead of waiting until october, which is when most spending groups traditionally have occurred, i expect that

partisan divide to massively shift in favor of republican starting this month. >> what is the biggest difference in terms of overall fund raising in outside money, be it the super pac or other? gregg's the difference is there are more rich conservatives who want to spend money on campaigns than rich liberals. it was not always true. it is true in this era in the last four years. one possible reason could be that there is a democrat in the white house. when there was a republican in the white house in 2004, you saw a lot of rich liberals who wanted to spend a lot of money. they use different mechanisms, different kinds of groups. it has been five or six years since i covered campaign finance

law the last time. i found that the intermission i had was worthless. it does change a lot. it is very complicated. what we are seeing is in this particular era with democratic incumbents, a lot of money on the right, not necessarily as much on the left in the room that we are talking about. >> you were speaking of brad, and one of the things your organization has is a web page. the center for competitive politics is the only organization dedicated to protecting political rights. explain what you mean by protecting first amendment political rights in some of the things that you have done in your organization. >> the center for competitive politics was founded to be a counterpart to a large number of groups, such as the league of

women voters and others that have been very active in trying -- campaign finance reform. we feel there is a great deal of the local science literature out there that is very different from concept of the money and politics. money and politics does not work in a way that people typically think. picking up of one case that would be extremely unpopular, in indiana, we have a states law that prohibits political robo calls, these automatic calls that people get. the amazing thing is, most people listen to robo calls, and most people listen to them all the way through. they are one of the cheapest, least expensive ways that a low finance candidate can get out and reach large numbers of voters with a message. they have been shown to move voters pretty effectively.

the indiana law made no sense in that you could bother a person as much as you want. you could call them if you had a live operator on the line, which meant that you had -- you could call them day and night if you had a live operator on the line, which meant that you had to have a lot of money to pay for that. there is a case that created that saids individuals could pool their expenditures together with their resources without limit. that has created the modern super pac as we know it. >> does the modern super pac make it -- make you happy? >> yes, generally. if you look at what they have done -- we are in our second

election cycle now with the super pac's. people complain that it is too expensive. didn't you say that in 2008 before we had super pac's? not reallycampaign any different? level of's actually print -- a level playing field. in the short term, super pac's have been favoring republican candidates, but i think that is a temporary thing. and when republicans are in power, i think they will always favor the party that is out of power. you may remember 527's, that is part of the law that you have to forget and relearn everything. i think is something that benefits out of power

candidates and tends to even the playing field. one quick point, which is that we will call them outside groups, it is a fairly easy term to use. i have always kind of graded at that term. these are american citizens participating in the elections. who came up with the idea that only the candidates are to be speaking in the campaign, where they should have some preferred speech pattern in the campaign? outside groups are what is all about. we get to speak as we want to. >> melody come i'm sure you are eager to jump in. i would like to remind people that your people are forum ethics in washington. >> i want to say that what brad said is not true. it is not new voices. it is old voices and very few. it is very rich people.

when you have the american action network, or crossroads, they are funded by remarkably few people. we are talking people who give $500,000 and up. this is not a man on the street. this is not how the citizenry get started to pay. this is maybe 100 people participating in these elections. think about whether you think our elections are to be bought and paid for just by millionaires and multimillionaires. it is not a joe citizen who is having an influence. those are not the voice is your hearing. >> one thing on that topic, this is not an academic study, and i would not -- and i would want to see wide ranging analysis. i covered the primaries this year. it was the candidates with the biggest super pac who won the republican primary. essentially, it was mitt romney who had the biggest super pac. his donors were traditional republican donors for the most

part. the guy with the second biggest super pac last of the second longest. i would say that i do not expect to ever be an open presidential primary ever won by candidates that does not have a super pac in american politics. >> let me go back to melody, because i can't -- i think she has not finished. it sounds like we've hit a nerve. it did not take long. you go ahead and then we will go back to brad. >> the super pac's are not even the real danger. i like to ink of them as the kim kardashian of the campaign finance world. what you have to worry about are the 501-c4 organizations. people's eyes glaze over when you start talking about the tax code. these are the social welfare organizations. people can go made anonymously to these organizations. those organizations are where the real power is and where a

lot of the money is going. crossroads is a super pac run by coralrose, but these welfare organizations have much more money than the super >> -- a super pac's. the election will be long over before we even know how much money they had and who even put in that money. just because we do not know does not mean that the people who benefited from those nations will not. corporations who will give money like that of our large donors who will give money to people like that, they are expecting a return on their investment. just because we do not know does not mean they are not expecting gratitude. they will make darn sure that the people they gave contributions to know exactly who gave it to them. we will never be able to tie those things together like we can now.

we can look at campaign contributions and compare them to those who vote. >> i want to remind everyone in the room that you have an opportunity to write down questions. and you can feel free to do that now on a piece of paper, your program, whatever. and will be coming around in about 20 minutes to collect those. brad? >> i want to share a technical point to bring the audience up to speed. for example, we often referred to super pac's as a romney or obama super pac. by definition, they have to act independently of the campaign. we should note that the romney campaign or the obama campaign or the santorum or the gingrich

campaigns do not play a role in setting these organizations up. >> yes, they do. it is always their top people that are in the super pac. >> people leave. of course they do. you cannot expect a bunch of romney people to go off and start a gingrich or obama super pac. the point is, then they are art of contact with the campaign. -- they are then out of contact with the campaign. let's go on. the money is not in c4's. the figures through october 6 show that super pac's spend about twice as much as the c4 the groups. >> that is just the stuff that is reported to the federal election commission. >> ok, we will have to go into that, too. c4 groups are a fraction of what is spent in this campaign.

they will not spend as much in total as the obama campaign alone will. and that is for all races in this cycle. that is the reality. the obama campaign will spend more. look at whether they are ordinary citizens. of course, they are not. but let's look at this. when foster frisz funded a super pac that backed present form, did that keep millions from getting hurt? or did it help them to get hurt -- to be heard? before then, he was floundering. did newt gingrich supporters feel they were drowned out by the spending on him? >> there were no newt gingrich and rick santorum supporters.

if those people had had actual american supporters, they may have stayed in the race lobber because they would have had lots of donors, which they did not have. >> at this point, we are not talking sears the because we know -- if you say they did not have many supporters, you are not talking seriously. there are hundreds of thousands of supporters of newt gingrich and extend from that supported them in the primaries. perhaps you believe that everyone who goes to the polls is an ignorant dewpoint. but i'm not so pessimistic. in 1996 cannot -- in 1996, he made it more possible that bob dole might lose. other gop candidates got hurt. everybody did.

and we go back to 1968, gene mccarthy got his anti- war campaign up and running in a weekend because a bunch of people came in and gave him $10 million. we cannot do that now. did that draw people out? or does it make people heard it? >> i want to go back to you, kim, because you have been tracking the money. in addition to these questions of how much influence individuals have, there is also the question of what the state of play is. this actually came from something you wrote about, nick, that george soros soar on a bible that he would not donate to -- swore on a bible that he would not run into a super pac and then he decided to. what role does this play and how elections get funded?

>> the democrats pretty much said that originally, we are against outside money, against the super pac's, but if we're not going to play in the sandbox, we are pretty much going to take our tourists and go home, right? they feel like if they do not do this, they are at an incredible advantage. they are probably correct. one thing i have noticed is that you do not have these nonprofits on the democrat side spending as much as you do on the conservative side. and i would return to brad's point about it is a small percentage where we do not know where the donors are coming from. in some cases, more than half of the money is being traced back to groups where we do not know who their donors are. if you look of the democratic side, everybody has pretty much said that because of incumbency -- maybe people should telturn f

their cell phones. on the democrat side you will see the campaign side and in more than 50%. on the new republican side, i would expect to see ronnie coming in at little less than half and the outside groups more than half. that will give outside groups more influence. maybe we are fine with that. maybe that is ok, but it is something that is interesting to talk about. it is also interesting that you have a lot of money coming into certain races where you do not know where it is coming from. >> speaking of the day, he may not be able to answer this, but if you can, one thing that was interesting is that the supreme court decided to take another look at affirmative action just nine years after its previous decision. do you think that citizens united will come up again for review before the supreme court?

or perhaps, more to the point, do people who are looking at campaign finance as funders or organizers expect a lot to change again by the next cycle? -- expect the law to change again by the next cycle? >> i don't think so. i think, if anything, the trend will probably accelerate in a few different ways. they recently turned down a challenge, right, brad, on some aspect of citizens, saying, no, we actually believe this. if there were new justices added following the election and there were more democratic appointed judges, it would be easy to imagine a 5-4 decision

being reversed or changed in some way. under this court, they made it plain that this is their belief, their constitutional principle. they will keep applying it. i am not a lawyer, but i do not see any serious reconsideration of the decision. >> the supreme court soundly rejected the decision -- an opportunity to revisit citizens united. the case came out that gave them the opportunity and they declined. >> just to go back almost to the beginning premise that i launched with a are you know, middle class -- middle school student, it does not take a middle school students to understand the tape -- the state of play. to what extent do you think it is important that citizens understand the state of political funding?

you have basically just said there is no revisiting by the supreme court any time soon. obviously, people are watching political ads and the money is impacting people's votes. is there a mechanism by which individual citizens can influence the funding environment, giving money? just giving money, that as it. >> money is one kind of speech. i was asked a similar question at a different gathering recently and i said, look, barack obama has shown that there is a second model for politicians and elected officials. you can build a base of small donors. and it can be very robust, even in the world of unlimited spending. >> any other thoughts on how much impact citizens have over the state of play? >> if we are locked up here, the five of us, we are in the more

influential group of citizens. we have some influence even without having to give money. money is just one of the many forms of influence. one quick anecdote, what i was at the sec to my used to me a lot -- i used to meet a lot with these high school groups that would come in. we would give talks with a group of kids. one evening, they were creating a group topic and they would have these debates. it was on campaign finance. i looked at the resolution that was being introduced to regulate campaign finance. the students thought their proposal would actually create more regulation than this -- than the current system had. actually treated less regulation. -- it actually treated less regulation. this shows how poor public knowledge is of our laws in this area. it makes it hard to have a fair

discussion. large percentages of americans think that corporations can give directly to candidates campaigns in federal elections. they cannot. it makes it hard to discuss the issue because of lack of knowledge. >> melanie, what about the impact? not everyone has money to give, and not everyone who even has many things that money should be their prime mover in terms of speech, in terms of voting. how influential our citizens in not leveraging -- in the discussion over politics got out influential our citizens in not leveraging their welton? >> very few people actually come out to vote. people cannot go to town halls and demand real answers and not be palmed off with platitudes. they could go door-to-door.

they could run against the candidates that they do not like because so many people are dissatisfied for very good reasons with our elected representatives. they could run. it is not that people could not do more. it is generally that they choose not to. they're busy and they have other priorities. it is not hard to understand. and i think there is increasing cynicism by the american public about politicians, who seem to be out for themselves, or at least out for their last campaign dollars and they will sell almost anything for a campaign donation. that does increase the cynicism of our society. it is a large part of the region and a greater regulation of campaign finance. if it were up to make an omelet have public financing of elections. in that way, we could be sure that politicians are not treating their legislative votes on committees to make sure they have a campaign contribution.

they would be doing it because they believe it is the right thing. it also be spending out -- spending far more of their time thinking about our problems, rather than fund raising, which is what they do now occupied -- what they do now. >> kim, what we know about daughters? presumably, there are a lot of people of big wealth making contributions. in doing know anything of the demographics? gregg's texas. -- >> at texas. >> there is a heavy weighting there? >> it is where the billionaire'' are. there's a lot of money coming from new york, particularly folks that used to be with bain capital, or still are. folks from wall street are contributing heavily to the romney.ac's supporting folks in hollywood are contributing heavily to the

super pac's supporting obama. and you have your billionaires' out of texas. bob. is not really talk to anybody -- baba perry does not relate to talk to anybody, but has given a lot of money. and there is the elephant in the room here, who would be sheldon adelson, in nevada. and he and his wife have given something north of $70 million to various super pac's a supporting romney, and earlier, gingrich. that is a huge gamble to make. and you have to wonder whether folks feel like they deserve something for all of that money. i do not know. >> i remember sheldon adelson telling the press that all he wanted was a white house hanukkah party. >> that does not sound so bad.

>> there it is -- there are allegations of serious wrongdoing in china. he has also been very vocal about his political positions and wants a candidate to take those positions. and you can expect he will want a return on his investment. >> you are not seen these super pac donation lists because they have to say -- say to their daughters are. you are not seen the same level of money -- who with their daughters are. you are not seen the same level of money as we have previously. that is because much of the money is going through the c4. there was a "new york times" article about leaking money. and you are not seen the money

coming in to where it is reported. it is most likely coming in anonymously. >> in one of your articles, it said that the democratic super pac money was from unions in hollywood >> rich, white, men, n.y., texas, florida, california, kansas, and las vegas. that is where the money is for me come -- is coming from. i spent way too much time looking at reports. one thing about the super pac's, and it does not tell us about past exempt groups, and that is the main conduit for corporate money. but super pac money has made a of an electorate that is more and more diverse have more of

the money in politics that we know about come from a small number of very wealthy, mostly male, almost entirely white people. and just a few states. and those are the states were the traditional fund-raising happens. it is not a huge surprise. as you said more succinctly, is where the billionaires' are. when you start to break down just how few people are financing in both parties all of these outfits, it is liberal wall street people, movie stars, trial lawyers who make tens of millions of dollars in the tobacco settlements, that is basically where the money comes from. on the democratic side recall of the nascent democratic super pac conglomerate, which is still getting up to speed relative to the republican ones. >> we will start collecting questions shortly. if you have written them down,

we will start collecting those. i want to go back to brad. when you think about our democracy being predicate on one level on one person, one vote, but on the other level of money being considered speech from our those two incompatible aspects of our democracy? greta i do not think they are. let's pull -- >> i do not think they are. let's pull back on the hyperbole. it has been suggested that members of congress spend the majority of their time fund- raising. that is not true. no study has ever suggested that. all of these donors will expect a return. the vast majority of donors agree with the candidates and that is why they give to them. by and large, they do expect good government. we have research and studies that have gone into that. there is also the suggestion of corporate money.

everybody thought super pac's would be funded by money -- corporate money. that is clearly not the case. and there is reason to believe it is not just corporate money or traded organizations. there is one question of whether it is good or bad to have this more open, the regulated system where everyone can play this game. and the second question is how much more disclosure we need. with that in mind and i will note that 501-c4 organizations have always been able to participate in politics and have never had to disclose their donors. i take the presumption that the government should have a good reason before it starts keeping a database in which it catalog's our political activity and keeps track of who support -- who we

support and who is talking about politics. on the other hand, i do think the government can overcome that. it is not controversial in the supreme court that money does not -- is not equivalent to speech. pretty much all the justices who have sat on the court in the last 30 years, except justice stevens, have agreed with that. is there a compelling enough interest to overcome that first amendment right is the question. how much of that should be disclosed we have not gotten to very much. >> i think that is a great place for us to go. >> and just a reminder that bradley smith is the co-founder of the center for competitive politics and a fan of deregulation of campaign money. and melanie slone is with the center for ethics in washington.

melanie, back to you. i want to get to this disclosure question, but also, i want to approach the question about whether there is a fundamental mismatch between one person, one vote, and money is free speech. >> i would not agree that money equals free speech. i think they are separate and distinct. i think there are many questions about the disclosure issues. all the people who used to be in favor of disclosure are no longer in favor of it. and before citizens united, you had senator -- senator mitch mcconnell who said we should be able to contribute, what we want, but disclosed at all. as soon as they got citizens united, it has become the republican mantra to become a disclosure. there will not be disclosure any time to soon. of all the money that is going into the campaign ads. when brad says that he thinks

the government needs a great reason before they can catalog and keep a data base of campaign conjurations, well, they have been keeping that for many years already. it is filed with the election commission and it exists. now we have your $2,000 donation is catalogued, but not your $10 million donation to a 501-c4. we are seeing the smaller donors disclosed, but not the bigger ones. there is one difference -- when citizens don't a, that is one thing. when corporations do it, they are not doing it because they want our government. when they make a $4 million contribution to the american action network, they are doing it because they have an agenda. it is a business decision and they expect to get something out of it. we only found out about and not

by mistake. they filed paperwork with the insurance commissioners by accident. somebody inadvertently reported their donations to the american action network and to the chamber of commerce. they get hundreds of millions of dollars. they are not alone. there is a whole litany of these groups. a lot of corporate money going in and we have no idea what those corporations are expecting for those contributions. >> prue would not have any idea if we knew either -- we would not have any idea if we knew either. corporations spend about 100 times as much money every year on charitable contributions as they do on all political expending -- political spending combined.

corporations give away a lot of money simply because they think they will -- it will make for a better society. i have to say a word or two about this. i am pretty sure it i note mitch mcconnell's position on disclosure a lot better than it melanie gas. -- than malanie does. what we have long required as disclosure our contributions that go directly to candidates or parties are spending -- we have never before required a 501 c4 nonprofit to disclose all of its donors, all of them, because some donors have their money

used to run political ads. we thought many court battles throughout the civil rights era to try to make sure thesgroups would not have to disclose their donors. melanie is right because it is kind of odd that we are requiring disclosure of small amounts. i am open to adjustments on those. i think there can be a lot of changes made on both offense. there is a fundamental difference. there has not been in retreat on disclosure. is being proposed is disclosure that we have never had before. >> one of the things that comes to mind is as the game has changed so has the ability to turn around disclosure quickly. that is one of the things that is not happening. >> i want to talk about the irs.

i like talking about boring subjects that 10 to lead me down a path i can never -- that tend to leave me down a path that can never get out of. they're supposed to regulate social welfare nonprofits. the main groups you're talking about this evening, the whole idea of dark money, their primary purpose is supposed to be social where fell -- social welfare, right? you have these groups out there that are not even required to get recognized by the i.r.s. before they start operating. what you of absence citizens united are these pop-up groups. -- what you have had since it is in united artists bought up groups. -- pop up groups.

these groups will come along, liberal groups will not apply to the irs at all. they will fold right after the election and their tax returns are due a year or so after the election at the earliest. you do not have a sense of what they were doing. the irs has allowed these groups to operate cannot allow them to say to the irs, no, we will not spend any money on politics whatsoever. in some cases, even spend money the very same day their mailing out their application to the irs saying, no, we will not do any politics. that is the discussion we have to have about these sorts of groups. not groups like the naacp, or right to life, but what do you

do about a group like commission on hope, growth, and opportunity? runs a couple of news stories on its web sites. spends all of its money on politics. and unfolds. and then you start a new when the next time around. with citizens for strength and security action fund, that was -- iran during 2010. it folded -- iran during 2010. it folded. you have a start called the citizens for strength and security fund. use the same sort of caught and place clipboard from the same group, at the same sort of issues and is running the same sort of balance. mark my words, by 2013, it will

fold. and then you'll have a . -- and then you'll have a new one. >> what is it like to try a report on this territory that this kind of like los angeles during earthquakes season? things just keep moving around. >> it is pretty fun, but it is also pretty frustrating. it is always the practical task of reporting on dark money, you are reporting about huge sums of money with almost no idea of where it comes from with minimal ability to engage with the people in charge of the money. and only a partial knowledge of how it is being spent.

weds it has brought home to me and i think a lot about some of the fundamental issues of speech and regulation, one thing we're dancing around your -- around here, but we have an irs which is a taxing agency that is enforcing groups increasingly political in their outlook, you have groups that operate and cycle a round that blend lobbying and grass-roots lobbying and issue advocacy with stuff that is more obviously election oriented. the race is a challenge for advocates or regulation because you have to decide how to classify different kinds of speech, how do regulated, how was a different from any issue ad.

i do not think it is possible to do, but the sense i get from reporting on end and the challenge of it is to try to describe clearly what is happening, what things really are as opposed to what they're called technically. i really wish we had a catchy term for the attacks attempt -- tax-exempt educational group. something that allow us to shorthand it. it would help a lot in the educational aspect. >> editors do not want to see -- what i see is we are entering a universe where more money is flowing out side of party

institutions, and outside candidates, more of it controlled by constellations of political operatives and the owners with ties to different candidates. that is kind of where i see us going. i think it is a consultant's dream. it is like a gold mine for political consultants. you can make so much freaking money. he did not have to travel anywhere, you just sit in a control room in alexandria, you collect your checks, is a great job and does the future of politics. >> we have a least one growth industry. we have a whole bunch of questions. for people on twitter, you can use the harsh attack -- hashtag "investigate

this." explain what's nonprofits can do, maybe there is a place you can point people. >> there are groups for you can give money to them and take a tax deduction. they're not supposed to do politics. they might run a little issue advocacy, but they are not allowed to advocate for the election or defeat of a particular candidate. the does not mean they cannot have a partner c4 group. the rules on what those groups can do in politics or the spirit they c and they tend to political advertising, but their primary purpose is supposed to be social welfare. the irs has never defined what that means. you have a lot of these groups. we can spend up to 49% of our

money that we raise on political ads. the irs has not said whether that is the case or not. >> of these groups spend more than that. the american action network spends 66%. >> it also depends on how you define a political ad. it's very confusing. as far as what a super pac is allowed to spend its money on, under the irs code. this means they can spend all of their money on ads. that is what they do. they have to raise their money and report what they raised and who they did it from. those are the main differences between the super pac and a c4 group. >> i am so glad you asked.

>> a couple of legal points. a super pac has to spend its money independently from the candidate. that means they cannot confer with the candidate, they cannot do because the candidate has asked them to do it. it does not take much brains to know what the candidates are doing. they cannot actually talk and collaborate in the fashion. >> tactically. -- technically. when they sat there and pretended to talk to their blogger to one another, i would say that -- talk to their lawyer, i would say that was a counsel law. >> what is a super pac as opposed to a good old-fashioned pac? a pac can take only limited

contributions. they can do independent expenditures or it can give its money directly to candidate campaigns. the one final player is what we might call a generic 527. a super pac -- a generic 527 is a group that spends money on issue adds that sound a lot like political ads, and but did not advocate if you have a candidate. if groups were not defined as 501-c4s, they would just become 527 is. and they would report their donors to the irs. >> we have officially lost 87% of the audience.

this is the conundrum that we face. we are all serious about it. people do not come out on a weeknight to hear things they do not care about. it is so hard to explain and i think we're doing a great job, but we do have some limitations. this is a question i do not know we will be able to answer. give us your best estimate of the total amounts of never reported contributions that will be spent this year on house and senate campaigns by public employees unions, big insurance big oil, a big law firms, and big finance. >> i have no idea. >> isn't the whole point that we do not know? >> we can do some back of the envelope. it has been reported that there is a network of donors

associated with >> through a variety of groups, we note american crossroads and crossroads gps will spend $300 million. the unions, i have seen some figures for this. some much of what the unions do is not advertising, but the mobilization. they do spend some money through super pac, they may spend some money through c4s. the reason we called it a dark money is because it is dark and we have no idea. >> how can we straightened out the ambiguity of the c4's. >> we could do a lot to change laws.

where should simply restrict them from engaging in political spending. the point was initially to be a companion to the c3. engage in some kind of lobbying. if you want to engage in political activity, require somebody to start a 500 -- a super pac or the spending would be disclosed. you can prohibit them from engaging in political spending at all. >> how do we know if there is quid pro quo? are there reports or studies on which media companies are receiving the most money and how those companies are politically connected? >> i am guessing and means -- it means that they are spending money. >> it could before the ads, i am confused by the question. >> does the person you want to clarify the question?

[inaudible] we have no idea if there is any sort of quid pro quo going on. obviously tv stations across the country are getting a lot of money for these ads. >> would give the money, i think, flows to local tv stations -- most of the money, i think, flows to local tv stations. those tv stations make a huge amount of money from political ads. it is a great business because they can inflate their prices, make up quotes, no one knows what the real prices people are paying our. they're resisting proposal.

>> you have to go there in person and pull the record yourself. that is incredibly burdensome. you have that and you have the fact that these ads better run by a candidate, there is a certain amount of money those costs. you cannot inflate those, but these outside groups, in certain markets, like in ohio and florida, i did not think there are any ads running better not from these outside groups.

whether there is quid pro quo, you cannot say for certain. >> let me go back to you, you are someone who has gone to serve and the capacity of being a commissioner on main sec. what came up for you as you did that that may influence your decision to start the group? >> the biggest thing that came up for me is that nobody is doing anything bad. we would see many cases and some of them would clearly be violations of law and some of them clearly not be violations of law and some of them would be close. in virtually none of those cases, very few was anybody actually trying to do anything that i think anybody in this drama considered bad.

the vast majority were accidental violations or things that really do not have much impact. the incredible burden that these laws pose on true grass-roots political activity. it is very hard for to grass- roots groups to do anything. you have to hire a lawyer and an accountant cut what do you think

of that? our small actors being penalized by regulations? >> there are plenty of violations that most cable industry and a thinker pretty darn egregious. people are engaging in conduit contribution schemes. if you are coercing your employees to make contributions, which is something we are seeing routinely. they're well known to be the most dysfunctional agency in washington. john mccain called the little agency that can't. it has six commissioners. quite often, they split 3-3 and cannot do anything. five of the six commissioners are sitting despite expired

terms. one of them said he believes is his job to help republicans and the position. president obama can be blamed in held accountable for his failures to nominate anybody new to this commission. he tried once and that person did not get to the senate, so he did not try again. he has done very little -- >> i am walking off stage if i do not get to respond to this. the mere fact that -- th dfec is the enforcement agency with presidential appointees that determines what the regulations are. anybody can file a complaint. that does not mean anybody violated the law.

i hope we are glad that is the case. they do not in deadlock frequently. it deadlocks 3-3 about 3% of the time. we could go on and on down almost every point that melanie. you do not have a clue as to what goes on. that is the fact, you do not know what you were talking about. >> i would prefer not to go down the road to open warfare. >> i feel like there was a very dishonest attack that attempts to mislead the audience if you're not going to give me a lot of time, you have to let me say, she does not know what she's talking about. move on toing to other questions. these questions seem to be related. one is from the audience and the second is from twitter. the first line of questioning

was how our citizens united and super pac not blatant violations of the 14th amendment? how do regular voters have equal protection under the law? how can this be called a democracy when a presidential candidate must raise zero billion dollars to win an election? these are -- must raise $2 billion to win an election? >> they are value judgments. it does not matter what i think about citizens united. it does not matter what most of us think about citizens united. that is the law of the land and that is where we live right now. it is almost like he sort of have to figure out a way forward and to talk about issues of disclosure more than anything else. >> no one is putting a gun to

his head. it was obama in 2008 that shows to raise three-quarters of a billion dollars. he said, you know what, i can crush john mccain if i do not take public financing. he reversed his pledge to take public financing. until this election, every year for the past couple of decades, after each party nominated a candidate, david did a bunch of taxpayer money and a great -- they would get a bunch of taxpayer money. obama said, i am done with that. i will not take that money i'll raise my own money. mitt romney followed suit and now both candidates are off to the races. it was a choice, and a meaningful one. they do not have to raise any money for the general election if they do not want to. >> dollars are not stuffed into

ballot boxes. there used to persuade people to vote. ultimately, we as voters, have to make decisions about what we're going to do. one of the concerns that we have is that too many voters will not take that seriously. there may be some truth to that, but ultimately, if that is the direction you're going to take, we're really giving up on democracy, i think. we have to assume the voters will try to do the job. there is good evidence that spending adds to voters' awareness. we need to -- it is not contrary to help -- to a democracy to say people -- to say we are going to let people speak as much as they can speak. q. what the government stepping in and deciding who has raised

too much money? that is a very dangerous thing to do. -->> the quick answer to this question is no. how'd you feel about public funding for candidates? >> it does not solve the problems of independent speech, which existed before citizens united. unless you want to be an citizen speech, you have a problem. you have to start looking at groups, they file complaints against candidate in the middle of campaigns. we'll have to say, what is political? people start doing things -- they will need more to spend more money to do it. at some point, so much of what we do has a least some political overtones that you cannot get

rid of that. in that respect, i do not think public financing to never accomplish what supporters hope it can. >> melanie, i will let you chime in on that. what safeguards are in place to prevent foreign entities from turning to a super pac? >> on the question of foreign entities there are laws prohibiting foreign entities and individuals from donating. people cannot donate to american campaigns. there are multinational corporations now and the rule is any money that is spent on elections would have to be raised here, but you can question whether a company that has offices here and can raise money here, but are those making contributions related to the

company's home interests in another country? there are legitimate concerns about ways that for an individual's and foreign governments could influence our elections. >> when it comes to political speech, you can engage in a lot of thought experiments. las vegas since corp. is publicly traded. 92% of its revenue comes from that the territory of china. he is an american citizen, it is his earnings. you do kind of get -- what money is that? is that foreign money? in an age of were borders have less meaning and, can we really

draw that distinction? >> ed whitacre comes to the c4s, you have -- when it comes to the c4s, you have no idea. you could just list a bunch of llc's. he did not need to tell the irs anything other than that and anybody could be behind it. >> this one goes to both of you in the center. as you work on your -- what don't you know that you wish you knew? where do you see the story going next? >> the donors, we do not know the donors. i feel like that is the one thing i will keep hammering over and over. i spend my days, people walk on my desk and they'll laugh and they said they still sorry for me, these guys will talk to me,

but when you are calling folks from these organizations, you are calling and you were calling and nobody ever calls you back. i've never felt so rejected in my life. you go to the offices and you tried to get them give your tax forms. q. are forced to -- and sell and so did not comment and so and so did not comment. it is difficult to get people to pay attention to this when you do not have compelling characters to write about. you're much more likely to read a 5000 word story -- we write a very long stories. it is much easier to get people to leave them if you can hang it on people will talk to you. >> that is why they will not talk to you. that is not the audience.

they have no interest in having a high profile. they're now looking to have their names in print. they want to secretly influence or about and they can only secretly influence your votes if they're not been written about. it is working out well for them. >> you have published an e-mail from one of the big donors. how do you deal with the question when you cannot go back to a lot of the donors to get more information? >> you do the best you can. i like to talk to everybody that i am writing about and hear what they have to say. that is just good journalism. they're often in a position of writing about the very influential entities and people who prefer not to talk to the press. some of the reporters can be a pain in the ass, so i cannot

blame them. there is a huge information gulf about the motivations and priorities about a small group of people who are planning more and more full initial role in politics. i would like to be able to understand what they're doing better and describe its readers better. >> it is just about that time were we wrapped up our discussion. i'm going to go back to this group of virtual middle school students i invented. as extra credit they had listened to this entire discussion and some of them are depressed about the state of politics. how do we proceed? this is the state of play. we have been able to take a really comprehensive look forward in the time allotted at some of the issues we're facing with dark money. you go back to people who are

like, oh yeah, america is about one person, one vote. america is about free speech. it means different things to different people. how do we frame the issues in ways that are understandable and important moving forward? i will go back down the line. >> america is also about change. just because this this way right now does not mean it has to stay this way. i would encourage middle school students to get involved in the political process. you all of a great opportunity ahead of you and i hope you'll vote, get involved in elections, and i hope you will vote -- work for the change we should have in this country. >> for middle school students -- >> you'll be better informed

about these issues. >> educate yourself about this groups, especially if you see an ad. the research the group. it is incumbent upon us as voters not to be lazy in not to just both a party ticket. research the different votes you were going to cast. that is something we get to do as part of a democracy. >> i would hope that people would come away thinking, this is a lot more complex and caught going end. if we're going to come up with realistic solutions, we need to get past the easiest -- easy associations and think hard about the issue and think hard about whether our experience --

experiment with a regulation in this area has worked. and if it has not worked, why it has not worked. i will use this to plug our website. it has a lot of contra thinking on this. we have to figure out a way to get more people watching this kind of thing. >> that has been it for our conversation. we have been speaking with melanie sloan, nick, kim barker, bradley smith.

we've been talking about the rise of dark money in the election 2012. thank you, everyone. [applause] >> tonight at 7:00, a debate with the candidates for the senate and indiana. he will debate the democratic nominee congressman joe donnelly. that debate is live on c-span at 7:00. after that, added o'clock, you can see the first presidential debate between president obama and mitt romney. that debate took place october 3 at the university of denver.

you can see that tonight at 8:00 on c-span. the campaigns are building sets at the media center ahead of tomorrow night's presidential debate. this'll be where representatives of the campaign talk to reporters after the debate. this will be the sixth ever town hall style presidential debate. the audience will submit questions and advance and the debate moderator will select which wants to ask the candidates. -- which ones to ask the candidates. thewe saw were the mitt romney

campaign is building their sats. moroccan towards where the obama campaign will have their -- is building there said. we're walking where the obama campaign will have theirs mitt romney stayed close to his boston area hunt for his prep today. tomorrow night, the debate is happening three weeks before the elections. we will have a preview at 7:00. the debate is at 9:00, followed by your phone calls. all this on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. the canada institute -- part of the $1.20 trillion in cuts congress approved as part of last year's agreement to raise the debt ceiling. in this discussion, we will hear from the wall street journal editorial writer and an

economist with george mason university. >> good afternoon. >> the budget control act passed by congress directs that on january 2, 2013, the obama administration must cut the defense budget by at least $55 billion and the same amount for domestic discretionary spending. the prospect of such reductions has led to assertions that they will damage the economy and increase unemployment. for example, earlier this year, senator carl levin expressed his belief that the uncertainty

created by the specter of sequestration was a real threat to the economy. meanwhile, some people who see excessive government spending as a source of the stress, and so therefore oppose using the federal government spending to stimulate the economy nevertheless oppose cuts to the pentagon budget. mitt romney asserted that a trillion dollars cut to our military will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs. the gop platform says that sequestration will result in a layoff of more than 1 million skilled workers and in later contends that a half dollars trillion of cuts to the pentagon budget would harm our national security and the struggling economy that cannot afford to lose 1.5 million defense related jobs. but others claim that the limiting pentagon spending would make resources available for more productive uses in the

private sector and lower the burden on taxpayers. onay's discussion will focus two related questions. his military spending different from other forms of government expenditures? and could the impending mandatory cuts in military spending under sequestration actually benefit the economy? in august of this year, our first speaker, benjamin zycher era, examines these questions in this paper. hard copies are available in the foyer and on line for those watching on c-span or on the internet. let me introduce our first speaker. a senior fellow at pacific research institute and a member of the advisory board of the quarterly journal,

"regulations." he was a senior fellow at the manhattan institute for policy research, a senior economist at the rand corp., and a member of the border directors of the western economic association international, and vice president for research at the milken institute, founding editor of the quarterly journal "jobs and capital," and a senior staff economist in the first two years of the reagan administration. he taught economics at ucla and at the martin smith school of business and economics at cal state. he holds a ph.d. in economics from the university of california los angeles and a master of public policy from uc- berkeley. our second speaker is stephen fuller, the doctor is a professor of public policy and regional development at george mason university and has been there since 1994 parody served as director of the ph.d. program on public policy from july 1998 through june of 2000 and from july 2001 to july 2002. he served as director of the center for regional analysis. he previously taught at george

washington university 25 years, including nine as chairman of the department of urban planning and real estate development and as director of a doctoral programs for the school business of public management. his research focuses on the changing structure of metropolitan area economies and especially on the impact of federal spending, including two studies completed within the past year that consider the economic effects of sequestration. in october 2011 he focused on the impact that a reduction of $45 billion in program spending from dod would have on the economy. in july this year he published the study which considered the effects of the budget control act and sequestration on defense and non-defense spending. i'm pleased to welcome him here to the cato. let me begin by introducing benjamin zycher. then we will continue with dr.

fuller. thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks, chris, i appreciate it. and thanks to cato for hosting the event and thanks to all of you for your time and attention. i want to discuss the topics. first, the simple analytics of proposed reductions in defense outlays in the context of gdp growth and aggregate employment. second, i want to offer a few brief comments on steve fuller's recent estimates of economic effects of cuts in defense spending, estimates that have received a substantial amount of attention recently. when i do that, i ask that you keep a straight face, steve, unlike the festivities last night. third, if you summary data on defense outlays on the

relationship between defense outlays and gdp growth. what i will not discuss today is the appropriate size and composition of the defense budget. that would require a delineation of u.s. interest, vital, important, desirable, and marginal, and the required to defend them. you're not going to get into that today. so let me begin with a very simple thought experience. suppose the crime rate false and this might be because of a demographic shift, because of changing into leasing practices, because of higher incarceration rates. tell any story you want, but if we had an economy in which crime rates fell, you expect there to be a decline in the demand for private security services.

that would represent a shift in demand and supply conditions that would be reflected in a relative prices. as a result of the relative price shift, we would observe a movement of resources across sectors, including. that would be a classic example of structural unemployment as labor and the owners of other resources find their most productive uses in a world in which economic conditions have changed. no policy maker would bemoan that increase in short-term unemployment caused by declines in crime rates. it's because the reduction in crime yield an increase in the actual wealth and it's entirely appropriate for there to be some short-term unemployment as labor and the owners of other resources find their most valuable uses in a world of changed economic conditions. more generally, i think we can all agree that one central purpose of a market economy is the most productive use of scarce resources in a world in which demand and supply

conditions change constantly in the face of an immobile factors. that internal condition, constant change in the economic environment, is the fundamental reason that central planning cannot work, even apart from the adverse implications of central planning for individual freedom. we use market institutions to allocate resources because doing so maximizes aggregate wealth. we don't use market institutions to allocate and reallocate resources in order to preserve jobs in any given industry. therefore, the structural unemployment that results from reductions in defense outlays is irrelevant and politically, even if it is highly relevant politically. to the extent that reductions

in defense outlays reflect an improvement in international security environments, that improvement in yields an increase in national wealth in exactly the same sense that a reduction in crime does the same. while increased employment in a given economic sector or increased unemployment, rather, in a given economic sector is painful for those subjected to economic losses, it is not a loss for the economy as a whole, because the reallocation of resources in response to changes in relative prices increases the aggregate productivity. let's not forget that this relocation process means automatically that resources not consumed in the provision of defense services are released for use in other sectors. among those resources is labor. so the employment losses dependent on a reduction in

defense outlays automatically are coupled with employment gains elsewhere, usually with a time lag. again, reduced employment is an effective cut in defense spending is irrelevant, analytically. let me turn to the gdp reductions in defense spending. in particular i want to focus on steve's projection of the effects of the $45 billion cut in defense spending for fiscal year 2013. i criticize his work not because it is weak, but because it is too typical of that body of literature. steve projects that a defense cut of $45 billion this fiscal year would yield $164 billion reduction in direct and indirect loss or $164 billion

downward change in direct and indirect sales, about a $59 billion reduction in wages and salaries, $27 billion in lost sales by subcontractors and other suppliers, the gdp loss of $86.5 billion for 2013, and a loss of more than 1 million full-time equivalent jobs. first, just in passing, there's an obvious double counting problem in steve's projections that i don't want to belabor today. more fundamentally, reduced employment is not an economic costs properly defined, because it's not the consumption of real resources. furthermore, resources

previously used for defense can be used for other government programs or return to the private sector, resulting in increased employment in those sectors. as i read steve's analysis, i recognizes this. his model is of short-term effects. but there really is a problem empirically, his implicit multiplier effect of 1.9 is far bigger than those reported in the rest of the peer-reviewed literature, most of which report findings of 0.5 to 0.8. this assumes that the concept of a government spending multiplier makes any sense at all, which i believe it does not. that is a debate for another day. consider the bureau of economic analysis estimates of the defense contribution of gdp growth. for the 12-year period from 2000 to 2011, the division's contribution is zero almost every quarter. it's because the defense share of gdp, even in the accounting model that it uses was 3% in the year 2000, rising to 4.7% or 4.8% in 2010 and 2011.

that is simply too small for changes to have large aggregate effect. a defense cut of $100 billion per year would have been two thirds of 1% of gdp last year in 2011. it simply is not possible that a cut of that magnitude would have a large aggregate effect regardless of what one believes about the underlying economics. in other words, regardless of what you believe about multiplier effects and all the rest. that's what the simple correlation between quarterly percent changes in real gdp and quarterly percent changes in real defense outlays for the 12- year period from 2000 to 2011 is close to zero economically and never differ from zero as a

matter of a statistical significance, in any event. let's look at the time 1981 to 2000. defense outlays grew up to 1989 at 4.3% annually, but fell in the second period at 2.5% annually. average gdp growth rate in 1981 through 1989 and 1990 through 2000 were identical, 4.3% and 4.3% annually, and moreover, none of the correlations between defense and gdp per those time periods is statistically significant. let me turn briefly to a topic, the economic cost of federal spending.

the official reference that you find in the budget ignores the adverse economic effects imposed by the tax system. that is what the economists call the excess burden of taxation. what that means is because taxes have distorting effects in terms of the economic behavior, the private sector has to shrink by more than $1 in order to send a dollar to the beltway. there is a large peer literature on this, which offers a range of estimates, a concern of one being 35 cents for every dollar that the private sector sending in tax revenue to the beltway has to shrink by an additional 35 cents.

that is quite a conservative estimate. the defense cut of $100 billion per year would increase the private sector by least $135 billion per year assuming the $100 billion cut out of defense is not shifted to other programs. let me conclude with one last point. conservatives properly are highly dubious of the gdp and employment benefits of federal domestic spending as illustrated by the meager effects of the obama stimulus fiasco. there is no particular reason to believe defense spending is different. liberals take the opposite view. domestic spending rather is the path, while the economic effects to the cuts to defense budget are not to be discussed. we have unfortunately in this election season inconsistency on this issue with the same people arguing against massive domestic spending increases as a sort of growth, and employment,

while arguing against defense cuts because of the adverse effects on growth in employment, and vice versa. suffice it to say that that kind of inconsistency on both sides of the political divide is not very conducive to clear thinking. with that, let me finish. thank you very much indeed. [applause] >> thank you all for inviting me to come and share some of my thoughts on sequestration in these real or imaginary impacts i have been measuring. the theoretical work we have just heard may stand up to the test. we will have a discussion about that. the objectives of what i have

been working on over the last year and two other reports, with a third identified that came out in september on the impact on small businesses from sequestration, and i have looked at nasa, particularly. the objectives are different. what i have to say it may or may not be in conflict with what ben has outlined. the objectives were to take an economy in which defense spending and non-defense spending plays a role, creates jobs, pays salaries and wages that is spent within the economy. it was not to test whether or not that spending could have been more productive in the private sector versus the

public sector. that is a different analysis. what is proposed by sequestration is to take some federal spending out of the economy, roughly $115 billion next year, and what i have attempted to do was to put some price tag on that. it is not costless. unemployment does have a cost. we have learned that lesson over the last couple of years. it has a number of costs besides the unemployment insurance and lost skills and output. when we take money out of the economy, it has a cost. it is a different analysis to say if we put it somewhere else we get that back. the money we're taking out is all borrowed. it does not reduce taxes. it just reduces the deficit. by borrowing less, we have more money available for the private sector. that is a good thing, if they need it, if there was a shortage of liquidity. of liquidity.